• 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.
Since none of the candidates share my views that only a permanent American presence in Europe could provide security, I would like to see if any of the candidates can offer a comprehensive plan for at least preventing a second war. If this League of Nations doesn't have teeth, who will listen? Senator McCahill's plan is too idealistic; no matter how badly the Tripartite Pact might be defeated, I think that many would consider losing so many of their lands to be insulting. I am speaking of point 3 of the Senator's plan.

I would also like to hear more of Governor Jarvis' tax reformation plan.

Simon von Ritter, US Army Captain (retired)
 
I am wary of the idea that the League of Nations should have troops of its own. If it doesnt have troops, it will be a centre of dialogue, negotiation and tolerance. If it has troops it will just be a justification for jingoistic imperialist vultures seeking to get larger slices out of the uncivilized and weak. The sole idea of liberating Ireland through the League of Nations implies it will create war, not avoid it, missing completely the point of its creation.

If instead of laughing at our former enemies and wweakening them (thus irritating them and making them hate us even more) we would build up relations of trade and interdrpendency.. then we would prevent a second war. Permanent American presence will only incite nationalism and revolts against our oppresion. But a healthy relationship of trade and cooperation: of cultural unterchange and academic-scientific cooperation.. that will prevent a second war. Because the hate will be forgotten, the strategical interest in being allies will be much more relevant than the interest in starting a war. Because when they realize, they will be living with american products, teaching about american inventions, they will be dreaming with visiting America and then the cost for war will be ypo high: nobody will be willing to start a war. That is the way for peace.

Senator Carlsson
 
Last edited:
My tax reform focuses on three aspects; dismantle the Federal Reserve, tax cuts, and tax code simplification. The first point is not only to reduce the power of an independent corporation, and return power to the Treasury Department, but also will give the government, and more importantly, the people, control over monetary policy, rather than it being in the hands of hidden men in smoky rooms. The second is straightforward enough, lower taxes will not only spur economic growth from investment and start-up businesses from the middle and upper classes, but will alleviate the poor, and grant all three classes more of a share in the market. The last key factor of the taxation side of my reform is integral in that I will push for a constitutional amendment to limit the taxes on all classes to a flat rate of ten percent, and would personally favour a five percent rate. However, in the cases of small businesses, we will have a tax incentive, which would, more or less, lower their tax rate to a nominal one to three percent for the next five years. As well, for the extremely poor, which will be determined by a commission, my reform would have another tax break for them, varying from a one to four percent cut. I would oppose any person paying no taxes, as then they would be simply feeding of the system and contributing nothing.

On the regulatory side, which I feel will help propel our postwar industry, I will push back the most intrusive measures implemented under both the Terrance, Harrison, and Hayden administrations. I will not revoke any safety reforms, only streamlining. I oppose government provided healthcare, but would be willing to support a sort of voucher system, similar to my education proposals. The other key forms of welfare may be downsized, but unemployment assistance will remain more or less untouched, since I feel that helping those that capitalism has not is an acceptable role for government, so long as government does not needlessly regulate or tax individuals and businesses.

In short, I support a lower, more simple tax code, abolishment of the Federal Reserve, and the push back of government regulation.
 
Senator Carlsson,

I do foresee the League having a small armed force, that would be easily mobilised to the areas of armed conflict. It would however be a peacekeeping force and not at the control of national governments. This wouldn't do away with national armies, which, should it come to it, can be called in support of the peacekeeping forces, but a body without teeth will not be able to command the respect of its members, let alone the wider world. According to the will of the League these peacekeeping forces (but not national armies) will be stationed around the world, probably initially in Europe, as Mr von Ritter suggests, where they will oversee any league work, eg plebiscites.

On Ireland, I do not follow that talking about something will inevitably bring war. Both sides of the conflict in Ireland are suffering, and mediation would be the best solution; there was no suggestion we should force the British to leave completely.
 
YIn reply to Senator McCahill

If there were some checks that prevented the great powers from exploiting the peacekeeping corps for their advantage and kept the military interventions to a minimum (only at extreme cases) then I would support thepeace corps. Because I doubt the League of Nations would intervene in favourv of an independent India but I'm pretty sure they would intervene in the case of a Latn American war. The League would nt bother the UK but it would intervene in Latin America to ensure flow of raw goods from the americas to europe remains steady. This is just but one of the many possible scenarios that may arise with the peacecoorps, so I remain in my previous point that the League of Nations shouldnt have troops. Besides, the sole pressure of the rest of the world should be enough to rnsure compliance of the League's laws. If there would be a massive polish uprising and the russian government would oppress the rebels, and then the diplomatic pressure together with the threat of a possible embargo from the League to Russia would be enough to make Russia obey the League. As you can see, the dependency on foreign trade is the key in my plan: every nation will depend so much in their neighboors that nobody will find war profitable or worth the trouble.

Senator for Alabama William III Carlsson
 
I can assure you that I have tried to add as many checks and balances as I can whilst not compromising the strength of the League to actually act in my draft plans. I can also assure you that military means are only to be used if economic sanctions have failed. Besides, I struggle to agree that international trade can prevent all wars; in large countries, such as our own, there are plentiful resources which means that countries can still cope on their own, even if they cannot prosper as fully.
 
I can assure you that I have tried to add as many checks and balances as I can whilst not compromising the strength of the League to actually act in my draft plans. I can also assure you that military means are only to be used if economic sanctions have failed. Besides, I struggle to agree that international trade can prevent all wars; in large countries, such as our own, there are plentiful resources which means that countries can still cope on their own, even if they cannot prosper as fully.

Well said, Senator. Economic sanctions are a nice step, but I agree that there must be some sort of military action included in the Charter. Some people will simply only listen to force.

Governor Jarvis --

I like your tax plan; it sounds sensible, even to an old soldier. What of your foreign policy? I understand you oppose the League, but what would you propose in its place?
 
I know you and I would more than likely disagree on foreign policy, since I have long been a pacifist and non-interventionist.

My foreign policy rests on the golden rule, treat others how you would wish to be treated. Since I would not want Washington to be dictated by Berlin, I would just as well avoid doing the reverse. As president, I would avoid war whenever possible, instead favouring negotiation and diplomacy, and only waging war as a last resort, and if we are under imminent threat of being attacked.

My opposition to the League rests on the same point Mr. Nightmore has made; unless we throw all our weight behind it, and are willing to wage war after war, often in the name of French or British imperialism, tied with a nice bow or liberty or civilization, then the League will fail. Moreover, if we join, and are not fully committed to sending our men to die in Europe's wars, then our relations with fellow members would deteriorate, while not improving our standing with non-League nations. As well, if we are not committed fully, the League will be viewed as impotent and will likely cause only more needless wars.

My solution is based on the system devised by our founders; we will form our relations, based on trade and commerce, at our discretion. We may work in collusion with the League at times, but we should, at all times, remain free from any foreign influence. Under my administration, I would support strong trade relations with France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Russia, and all the other major nations, with a goal of expanding our trade network globally. At the same time, I would oppose involving America herself in wars concerning Europe. America would follow the principles of our venerable founders, one where we are friendly and trade with all nations, but where we bind ourselves to no one in particular.

On the resolution of this war, I could support plebiscites in the Empire's, as well as support democracy, so long as the people want it. If not, they would likely elect a far worse tyrant. I would oppose any measure by the French or British to punitively destroy any of the Empires, and would support a lenient peace treaty, one where the European's can create a League of European State's to resolve European issues. in that way, we would promote peace and negotiation, without having to foot the bill or tie ourselves needlessly to the affairs of Europe.
 
((This debate is all sounding a little unrealistic in the amount of leniency, so I'm going to give a look into what quite a lot of Americans are thinking in-story)).

From the New York Times’ Weekly Column by Henry Jackson


Yesterday, I received a letter from a man whose son Frank recently returned from his tenure across the Atlantic. This man, one George Buckles, was absolutely perplexed by the direction of debate in Washington, and I am inclined to agree with him. In D.C., talk is almost exclusively of how Germany and the rest of our former enemies must not be subjected to harsh terms, but why so?

We were told this war was fought to prevent tyranny and smash the authoritarian regimes of the old world, and now we are told that these same regimes must be allowed to go scot-free? They began this war by attacking the French, and to protect freedom and democracy we sent two million of our best and brightest across the Atlantic. Our best and brightest fought and died there, and those who did not die have been maimed either in body, soul or both, and now we are to be lenient to the countries responsible?

The French and British do not deal in this ridiculous notion of peace without victory. They know that their people have suffered too much to let Germany go free for its crimes now. It is clear that Washington no longer listens to the people, dealing instead in empty rhetoric and “Leagues of Nations”. How in God’s name is such a League even supposed to be taken seriously if the peace treaty it is founded in shows aggressors that there will be no consequences for their actions?

America has sacrificed too much to allow Washington to let the murderer that is the Tripartite walk free.
 
Jarvis on the Campaign Trail in Boston, 1916

Recently I came across an article by a respected columnist. In it he argued that we had gone to war to prevent tyranny. If you accepted the government's reasoning, that is how it would look. However, when we see that our freedoms were never threatened, or that none of the Emperor's made claims about fighting liberty, that argument crumbles.

My first point raises another question; if we were not threatened, why did we wag this war? Surely the president has a good reason to send our men overseas, to fight and die in the fields of France! Instead, the only reason cited by the administration, and its supporters, apart from the fallacious argument which I have already, and will continue to, disproved, is that our ties with France obligated us to wage war. However, this contract had only been formed in the dawning days of his administration. As well, from the earliest days of his presidency, Mr. Terrance began expanding the military, not as a means of defending America, but to be used as a tool of the French in the upcoming war. Therein lies the problem; Terrance knew a war was coming, and that if he formed an alliance with France we would be forced into it; but he would rather millions of Americans die for the defence of France rather than protecting the liberties of their fellow Americans.

My second point must now be brought up, if only to fully refute the argument that we fought to defend liberty. I did not once hear of the Kaiser, or the Koenig, or the Czar talking about seizing the rights of the people; indeed, judging from our previous support for the Germans (and disdain of the French), one could very well assume that Germany was the democracy and France was a great tyranny. And considering how at various times we have given military supplies to all of our now rivals in the past few decades, and how we had warm relations with the Germans and Russians (the Germans for supplying them during their Franco-Austrian conflicts; and Russia based on their generous sell of Alaska to us), that only now, when we are aligned differently, are they threats to democracy, is interesting. Could the Germany of the 1870's be so drastically more authoritarian now that it had to be stopped. I remember that as late as the 1890's, some were arguing for an alliance with the Kaiser against France!
 
Letters to the Editor, New York Times

Dear Sir,

I feel obliged to defend the actions of this government and the politicians here in Washington DC, following the stinging attack in Mr Jackson's column last week. This government does not advocate being lenient, rather being fair. Millions of Americans have died, but so have millions of Germans. Neither side in this war is ultimately responsible; we need only look to the events that started the war in the first place to see both sides were at fault in allowing tensions to build. This party would support the liberties of the people of Europe in democratisation and the restraining of the defeated powers, with the independence of many small states, like Poland, Hungary or Croatia. I support the enrolment of an international military peacekeeping force. Yet equally we do not want to cause another war, which is the likely outcome of any treaty where one party feels they have been treated unfairly. I think that this knee jerk reaction that calls for retribution is unhelpful. If you feel you have a better solution, Mr Jackson, I would like very much to hear it. I, myself, believe that a fair treaty is the best answer we have.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin McCahill, Candidate for the Federal Party Nomination
 
Last edited:
I've said before and I'll say it again. This peace must not be lenient on those whom started it. The Russian Tsar, the German Kaiser, the Chilean President. Their system of ruling must be obliterated. The nations they controlled, which I have spelt out before, must be allowed to run free. But what we can't do is hang by a noose the majority of the people of these nations. They must instead be given the opportunity to live in democratic states which have been disarmed and who can play their part, though not one of domination, in this League of Nations. Keep in mind that with such large amounts of their territory taken away from them to make new nations like Poland and Czechoslovakia, they shall not be left in the same position they were in before this war started, and they won't again be allowed to wreck havoc against the world.

May I also say though, that this election is not merely about the peace. It's about what we want our nation to be. Now I feel I and the other Federals, along with independent supporters have built a foundation for great change. Pensions, the Federal Housing Commission, the FEB, safety standards, education funding. The Republicans have made quite clear their intentions to disassemble these hallmarks of progress. So I implore you, both who stood with me during the war, and those pacifists on the left, to vote for me now to ensure what's been built remains intact. A vote for me is also a vote for further reform! The electoral college should be replaced by a direct vote for example, something I've always argued for. And unlike what the Republicans would argue this is not against the free market and free trade. It was I who wished for us to remain in the single largest free-trade block in the world; the Commonwealth, and who had passed the TPA which sold off government factories.
 
You seem to be putting words in mouths of your opposition, Mr. President. Not once have I said I would get rid of pensions, safety standards, education funding. I merely said I would reduce them, and promote privatisation in the first and last case. The Federal Housing Commission has not aided the homeless to any great degree, and indeed has only given the poor the vain, and utterly false hope that government can eradicate poverty and other social ills. And my issues with the Commonwealth have been how it unnecessarily ties us to the United Kingdom, and therefore to the affairs of Europe. If it was simply a trade agreement, then why not make it open to all nations? For is not free and peaceful trade the best way to promote change in a nation? Or would you argue that the use of force, of tanks, and planes, and bayonets, is the optimal way to enforce change? If you don't,, I would be surprised, considering how eager you are to enforce changes you want on the German people, without their consent.

And what of the cause of liberty? I should think that the Germans, seeing how imperialistic and forceful we are, would sooner refute democracy than embrace it. And if they did, then we would've waged this war for a single purpose then; to further Anglo-French imperial interests. And that is what your League will be, either a venue for their imperial ambitions, or our own.

You laud yourself on your 'great accomplishments,' when neither are truly yours to claim. The Commonwealth has existed for decades, and has only brought us death in Europe. And the TPA only became needed after you nationalised those same corporations!
 
I didn't nationalise any corporations, I opened factories in cases where the free market was not able to do so fast enough, or was unwilling. One thing you seem to forget, and why your plans for privatisation of pensions and healthcare and education amounts to advocating their destruction is that the market wants profit, not the national benefit. Which is why in some instances, such as in promoting the consumer goods industry, it's better, and why the vast majority of the economy should be managed by the free market, however its superiority isn't applicable to everything.

I never claimed to have founded the Commonwealth, but it was you who wanted our withdrawal. And I did bring into it another large economy; France. It didn't bring us death in Europe, Germany's declaration of war did. That would be like blaming a fire on that which was on fire, rather than an arsonist who set it ablaze.
 
But what you forget is that companies need to provide a good service, or they will lose customers. If I don't like the store I go to, I can choose another. If I don't like the school my children attend, I can send them to another school. National benefit is all well and good, but it is not a great initiator. While profit and, for want of a better word, greed, are not great reasons for progress and initiative, they do get the job done.

And when you brought in another large economy, you brought an even larger war. Was the sacrifice of millions of Americans, and millions more Germans, Chileans, Russians, and Austrians worth the inclusion of France? Had we withdrawn from the Commonwealth, we would have been able to avert this war, and our boys could be working to make America more productive, more wealthy, and more free. Now they lie dead in Alsace, in Siberia, and countless other nameless places. I resisted the Commonwealth because I knew where it would lead us; and I was right, war came to Europe and you clambered in to help the "free countries."
 
After listening to the debates, I find myself in great difficulty. The President's foreign policy seems the most sensible, yet I prefer the Governor's domestic policy. I absolutely agree with Mr. Jackson's editorial; under no circumstances can we let the aggressors in this conflict walk away. Many of you may remember me as one of the more "hawkish" individuals regarding this war, but after seeing the carnage that this war engendered, I have no desire to see another war of this magnitude ever again. If that means imposing a harsh peace, so be it.
 
Mr. von Ritter, if America was beaten in this war, and stripped of her lands (the Philippines, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, et al.) and forced to adopt a new system of government, would we kindly walk off into the sun, accepting our fate, or would we desire revenge, and use that to rebuild our nation? If we place a harsh treaty on Germany and Russia, then all we will accomplish is either France and Britain, both of whom we have not always been so close to, becoming dominant powers in Europe, or engender such hatred in central Europe that another war would be possible. We have won this war; let us not make the mistake of being forceful conquerors. Instead show the world our love of peace, our desire for friendly relations, and show our restraint. We could destroy Germany, and topple the Kaiser, but who will take his place? A man or woman of great honour and integrity, who will seek warm relations with the friendly United States, or a tyrant with a burning hatred for America?