Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
So you think Mr Jarvis, after all of this, we should just leave the aggressors exactly as they were before the war, but teething with that resentment you describe?

Mr Jarvis, I know you have a tendency to resist logic, but conditions before the war led to the war. And it would lead to war again should your policy be put into effect!
 
I do advocate some change, Mr. Terrance, but I don't feel we should be as vindictive as some wish. I have already stated my support for plebiscites for democracy, and even for the independence of nationalities. However, some want to go much farther and I fail to see why.

However, what you, and many others, propose is something that only fixes half the problem. German and Russian imperialism has been curtailed; now French and British imperialism may run rampant on the continent. As well, we must understand why Germany and Russia waged war against France and Britain; it wasn't because they were democracies or because they were free.

I would also like to say that, despite my tendency to resist logic, I noted that the conditions in Europe were partly our doing, since we empowered Prussia in forming Germany, sent aid to Austria, and bought land from Russia, whilst attempting to hem in the French. If we had avoided interventionism in the first place, the balance of power may never have broken!
 
Character: Andrew Augustine Biddle, Senator from Rhode Island. Born 1867. He was born to a family of bankers and lawyers, but left to invest in maritime trade in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Very rich by the time he retired (in 1910), he still owns the Gyascutus Maritime Company even after being elected to the Senate in 1912. He is an isolationist and prefers to call himself, "unfashionably," a Jacksonian (independent).
 
Last edited:
It is rather odd that so many members of this senate cannot see how counter productive it is to demand compensation. We only serve to embitter the countries. Was it the people's of the nations who chose to fight? No, it was its leaders. Thus, we ought to assist in setting up a Democratic system to remove the old guard who desired war. Most importantly, we cannot demand reparations. Europe is bankrupt, and putting a few nations over the edge will only cause instability later

If we listen to the Hawks, we will help the world become a battleground. We must set an example for the world: A nation of free people, cautious in war, quick to peace, and free from restraint. Let us turn our eyes away from war torn Europe, and towards our domestic front. Let us reduce taxes and slowly de-nationalize our military industrial complex, returing War time economics back to our illustrious free trade.

We will become an economic powerhouse as the nations of Europe buy our goods, that is victory enough to placate the Hawks.

A vote for Taggarman is a vote for a safe world, and an American Century!
 
Welcome Senator Biddle, and well said Senator Taggarman. We cannot demand reparations, or Germany will be left so impoverished that its people will starve... and hate us. We must ensure the people are free, and that is why a plebiscite should be the main goal of the peace treaty.
 
And what, Governor Jarvis, if the Tripartite Pact would choose not to abide by the plebiscites you propose? Would you be willing to resume the war or impose other sanctions?
 
They are in such a position that they have no choice to accept; if they refused, I am certain the French and British would make short work of them, and they won't have us there to provide a degree of leniency. I would not put in sanctions, as that would only harm the people, who have already suffered enough, and are likely to revolt against the leadership of their nations, should they oppose the peace treaty.
 
I have been away from the capitol for a bit in discussions with industry and workers in Chicago, so I am afraid I am not entirely up to speed with the latest debates.

Riccardo93 said:
They are in such a position that they have no choice to accept; if they refused, I am certain the French and British would make short work of them, and they won't have us there to provide a degree of leniency. I would not put in sanctions, as that would only harm the people, who have already suffered enough, and are likely to revolt against the leadership of their nations, should they oppose the peace treaty.
Click to expand...
By that logic would you consider arms sanctions, then? The trade in weapons would only harm the people if they are likely to revolt or otherwise dissent, and does no good for them in building up good government. To cut it off temporarily at least lets the armaments industries cool off after the war, and keeps the nations focused on what they should have been focused on before the war - peace and their people's prosperity. It may be something to consider.

As for compensation - no nation can pay for the war again, after having fought in it. I agree with many people's opinions here in that I see no reason to aggravate and alienate any nation further by demanding payment of any kind, and I'd advise a strong suggestion to the Commonwealth to keep Britain and France from any such demands as well. It will simply create impossible debts.

((the recap has been updated to the latest primary))
 
Where are the voters?

People, if you want to see a fair and just America rise from the ashes of this war, I implore you to vote Terrance!
 
Mr President, with due respect, I think the bigger problem is in the Republican primary, where not a single ballot has yet been cast; for all their talk, they do not seem to get votes. It is worth noting that the only votes thus far have been for my campaign (though from only two votes it's hardly a reliable sample! Maybe people are disillusioned with politics as the editorial at the top of the page suggests?). I believe this is because my clear platform is a model of fairness abroad and at home.
 
Last edited:
Federal: Terrance
 
I feel the severe lack of votes come largely from a malaise of the spirit, a great melancholy brought about by the horrible losses we suffered during Terrance's war. That we lost millions of people during, and somewhat because, of his presidency, and our Congress in general, this dissatisfaction with our government it natural. However, since most people want to believe this war was fought for noble purposes, and not the imperialistic land grab by the French and British that it is, the ruling party has not yet lost its support.
 
((Spoke too soon on the voting!))

Mr Jarvis, the reason the public still believe the war was waged for noble purposes is because it was. The danger now is of both an uncontrolled French and British "imperialistic land grab", but more pressingly of American isolationism. We should push for fair terms and enforce them, standing by the international institutions that will doubtless be created.
 
We joined in a war (which we helped cause) on the basis of protecting French and British imperial possessions, not to defend liberty, as Germany is a rather free state (at least it was when some of us were arguing for an alliance with it only twenty years ago). We must bring this war to a peaceful and fair end, but why should we continue to involve ourselves in the affairs of Europe? Did we not break from Britain to sever those binding ties? Did we not avoid aligning ourselves to any one power as best we could, and prospered? When we aligned to one European state or another, we got involved in a war (1812, Spanish American War, near war with France, and now this Great War).

And it's not isolationism, it is instead a reluctance to tie ourselves entirely to another state, or group of states, which is an entirely reasonable position. Indeed, the only isolationists would be the Nightmore's of society, who think peace can only come from the barrel of a gun. I reject that and favour entering into the world as an impartial force, not bound by a League or a Commonwealth, but with an unbiased outlook, and more importantly, free from obligations about joining more imperial wars.
 
You seem to be confusing protecting British and French imperial possessions with protecting the British and French democracies and their people. Along with our own interests. Germany and her allies were expansionist and wanted global hegemony, at some point that would have lead to conflict with us anyway. It was my actions which led to us having that conflict with strong allies against a weaker foe, on the fields of France rather than the streets of New York.

And I made the steps necessary to win that rightful, although tragic, war. And it was you and the Republicans who opposed those actions at every turn, attempting to put in peril our many soldiers out there fighting. It was I and others in my government who stood by justice consistently and did what had to be done to win, as well as laying the foundations for a better and more socially secure state to evolve for the next four years. That's why you should vote now for another Terrance and Federal administration.
 
((oh yeah, we're voting - I had almost forgotten about that))

Ah yes, the land grab of... a free China, negotiations (which the isolationist wing neutered at the time, leaving America simply an ignored and forgotten voice in the halls of emperors - it is curious how little those who profess to love the diplomatic approach shrink from any kind of diplomacy aside from shouting in suggestions from afar - if it doesn't hurt trade relations, of course), and denying false pretexts for war. What ruffians these nations who allow for democratic votes to mean something in their country while working together diplomatically with likeminded nations and avoiding expansion (and even giving autonomy to former colonies) are!

Federal: Terrance - with no offence to Secretary McCahill, there is the old adage about not changing horses midstream
 
You stole the freedoms of the American people in the defence of 'liberty!' We now have a draft, which should be repealed at once, and formally abolished by constitutional amendment, and the government now holds a great deal of influence in the market, and then you attempt to take credit for liberalizing government run or funded businesses when you were the one who brought about that control. Not only that, you chose to bring us to war; you didn't have to ally with France, and you didn't have to kill millions of Germans, Russians, Chileans, Austrians, and Americans!

How is a war rightful when we had no business being in it? Especially when you, and others, use illogical arguments about defending freedom from nations that, for the most part, have begun liberalizing, while protecting nations that oppress Africans, Indians, Orientals, and countless other peoples! Neither side cared about liberty or freedom; they only wished to protect their own power. Germany wanted to expand to ensure the French and British wouldn't overrun it, and the latter two opposed any such moves, legitimate or not, to preserve their own influence.

Furthermore, we were allies of Germany at one point, and even contemplated war with France when I was a child not so long ago. What has changed? Has France, in only fifty years, moved from an imperialist power hemming in America, to a free liberal democracy that wants world peace? Looking at the events of the past decade, I cannot imagine anyone making such an argument.

A vote for Jarvis is a vote for Peace, Prosperity, and a Return to Normalcy!
 
Mr Jarvis,

Conscription was always intended as a temporary measure and was presented as such at the time, as was much of the other war-time legislation. Your reaction has been inflammatory and exaggerated.

The President clearly stated his intention to intervene in Europe through an alliance with France, and he won an election with that pledge. To argue he wasn't justified in his actions is nonsense.

You talk of us fighting against reforming nations and supporting repressive ones, but since the Buffalo accords, British colonial power has be decentralising. The Commonwealth is a key institution to this and will push France in the direction of its founding document. By contrast, Russia and Germany have been aggressive throughout Europe against France, central Europe and the Nordic countries, not to mention their repression of a free Polish state and Austrian control over the varied populations of Balkans against their will. The Tripartite was formed as a stalwart against the encroachment of democracy from the West, in a vain attempt for the Emperors to cling onto power without a mandate.

Finally, you blame changing attitudes towards France and Germany as a cause of the war, yet it is your view that we should be pragmatic in our policy, not clear and fair (eg through our adoption of a global system like the League of Nations). How can you justify that you will not cause more suffering for the peoples of the world, by taking such a self-centred isolationist view against global cooperation?
 
Last edited:
Conscription implies that the government owns you, and can use you to wage war even if you don't want to. I opposed completely then and I won't rest until it's been abolished. I think even the most hawkish amongst us (looking at you Mr. Nightmore) can agree that a forced army is a poor army, and an all volunteer army, while smaller, is more disciplined and has better esprit d'corps.

While the President did indeed state he supported an alliance with France, he knew full well that a war could not be averted. Every attempt Hensdale and I made failed, and that his alignment would only spur more aggressive behaviour.

If you remember, we supported Germany, which made several moves to liberalize, and you may also recall that Britain only granted autonomy when Harrison practically forced them to. And still, the African people are oppresed, the Vietnamese, and other minorities. France has made no effort to grant autonomy to it's colonial possessions, and has been exceedingly brutal towards her Algerian subjects. Furthermore, the Franco-German conflict in the last century was brought about by our supplying Germany, and that the Suez Canal incident was caused by France refusing German passage. So, if you want to say that the German's were horrible, consider that the French are just as to blame for this conflict.

Furthermore, I brought up our changing views to show that we didn't care about liberty or democracy, only how to best expand our power. Right up until the China Affair, we were pro-German, and that was only five years ago! Global cooperation is good, but forcing our values, or forcing French control, is not! And if we don't create a fair deal, we will have another war, and millions more will die. If we create a League, it will either be ineffectual, it will promote imperialism, or we will become overextended. We must try to make a more peaceful world, but the best way to do that is to have the aforementioned plebiscites, and to create worldwide free trade. A League will only align non-League nations against us, especially if we act imperialistic, like we did under Harrison and Carr.
 
Senator McCahill, what are your domestic economic plans?

I have yet to endorse a candidate because I'm not altogether satisfied with any of them, speaking for myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back