The Second Reconstruction-A Post-Civil War Kaiserreich USA Quest

aeiou! said:

Rood, people are talking about backstabbing Canada when we emerge a great power, I'm effortposting and you imply we're not dealing in the realest of politik?

As many people have noted, we kinda don't like what the Europeans are doing to the US what with their funding of seditious elements and sending foreign troops to kill Americans-this also makes it a hell of a lot easier to press the revanchism button against them. The counter-offer doesn't make note of any debt-forgiveness and doesn't stipulate running occupation duty for them-as far as I can tell our job would just be to go in and smash the syndicalists, with what follows after TBD.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

idk how you missed this so:

Jeeshadow said:

Ambassador Marler brought an offer from the Entente of substantial material and military assistance to the United States, similar in size and scope to the German and Internationale missions. Furthermore, Canada would deploy troops, acting on behalf of the US, to protect the Panama Canal and Alaska from German and Japanese aggression. They would also deploy a token force of troops to New England to force the CSA to choose between seizing such a strategic position or not starting a war with Canada. The US then could continue to use New England's manpower and industry to aid its war effort without threat of Syndicalist invasion. Marler emphasized that these deployments would be temporary and would end with the Civil War. In return, Canada wanted Britain's debt forgiven as well as a binding promise signed by Olson and Hull that when the time came to retake the British Isles, the US would provide similar assistance in kind. He also emphasized that the American government should make its decision quickly, for Canada could not allow the CSA or German schemes to succeed.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

edit: mind you, we're the ones who will need help with rebuilding if we get the Entente involved, because the syndies sure as shit aren't going to give us the steel belt untouched, and there will certainly be resistance groups formed even after the CSA has been occupied. The Entente would have us by the balls at that point instead of us, because they'll be the ones offering generous loans and sending technical aid.

nachtingale said:

idk how you missed this so:

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yeah, that's the original offer. Idk how you missed that I'm arguing for the counteroffer, which doesn't make mention of any of that.
E:an argument could be made that us not abolishing their debts could be a good thing for the Entente; we can't exactly collect on it unless they retake the mainland/it implies we want to see them back in Europe and are committed to seeing it through, wheras if it's forgiven we have way more incentive/wiggle room to just bolt from them once adequately reconstructed.

aeiou! said:

E:an argument could be made that us not abolishing their debts could be a good thing for the Entente; we can't exactly collect on it unless they retake the mainland/it implies we want to see them back in Europe and are committed to seeing it through...

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

on the flip side, us having that debt to hang over their heads means we can force them to bend to our will when the time comes that the torch of liberty shall spread throughout the New World!

[X] The US would not allow its sovereignty to be trampled on nor be a beggar power, it would win the war and defend its overseas territories on its own.

Joining the Entente after we have been in a damaging civil war only to send our men to die fighting for the British King to Rule over England again is not something I see as Ideal

Baltika9 said:

My basic assumptions are as follows: that the loyalties of the average American are not yet decided, that our actions here can split our Federal coalition further still, and that the optics of us handling this situation are the most important consideration here.

Let me know if I'm not coming off coherently, as I'm in the middle of travel and ill-rested.



My concern is the hearts and minds of the average American. If I'm Reed, I want an easy march through New England; if I'm Long, I want the South and Midwest to fall in line with me. What I'm most concerned about is how well the average American will react to me firing the first shot and using foreign volunteers and allies kill Americans on American soil in the name of my cause. If US government itself invites a foreign ally onto US soil to kill American citizens, that worry goes out the window: the lawfully elected Federals are doing it, so I can do it too!

In other words, I fear that inviting the British Crown onto US soil will enable Long and Reed to whatabout their way into equivocating their cause with ours. Those Americans whose loyalties are with the AFL laborites and Southern Democrats still have time to join Reed and Long. I do not want to give our adversaries the propaganda to help the AFL and Southern Democrats make that crossing.

Now, there is a flipside to this coin as well: if we choose to wave our flag, we have a concrete standing from which to attack Long's and Reed's own tacit supporters and peel off their political flanks. The message for the Federals can then be something like this: "Reed says 'yes' to Paris, Long says 'yes' to Berlin. What do YOU say, AMERICA!" And the point would be to wreck the cohesion of their controlled territories, cause rebellions on their turf, and so on.


I want to come back to the 'coups succeed on momentum' truism. Currently, the Feds seem to be folding in many places, and people may elect to just go along with Longists or the Red Army for the sake of not getting murked. In this way, inviting the Brits as peacekeepers is sufficient in that it will show that we are not as fragile as the recent string of misfortunes would show; a 'dominos stop falling' moment. I already described how bad the optics of inviting them as an offensive force will be in my opinion.

So, yeah, I this is why I think that bellicose nationalism is better than a peacekeeper force, and both are superior to inviting the British Crown onto our soil to kill the citizens whose loyalties we are still fighting for.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

If that "My concern is the hearts and minds of the average American" was a veiled criticism on focusing on powerbrokers, I'm concerned you think the average American won't see the winds blowing and the odds stacked against them, and that they're standing alone against powers far greater than them. KR's America mentality is orders of magnitude different given the lack of recent victories and conga-line of setbacks, and it's something to try and keep in mind.

Jeeshadow said:

The failure to stop the Battle of Detroit, the take over of Federal land in the south, and the rise of Communes across the Midwest had created an impression that Olson's government was unable of controlling a rapidly spiraling situation and their failure to take major offensive action following expiration of the two week deadline did little to change that perception. Many politicians and officers which were on the fence took this as a sign to jump ship. Probably one of the most notable and consequential of these was Lt Colonel George S Patton, who had just been recalled from his service in the Hawaiian Division. He would cite Olson's unwillingness to take the fight to "the Damned Reds" as the main reason in his letter to MacArthur for his decision to join the Union State. Patton would prove to be one of the AUS' most creative and dangerous commanders during the war, rising rapidly and being able to even go toe to toe with Omar Bradley in several crucial battles and challenge General Chaffee's infamous Armored units. There was at least a silver lining to the lack of action, as it kept Lewis and the moderate Unions from joining the CSA during its initial momentum, potentially heading off several strikes and keeping radicalism alive in the Unions in those tense years after the Civil War.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

idunno chief, between that and Garner getting the boot after an impassioned speech denouncing secession with nothing to show for it beyond his home state, people have already picked a side. The civil war might've only been going on for a comparatively short while, but secessionist undertones have evidently existed far longer than that. This is orders of magnitude more powerful than a coup, and as indicated by the text now describing this as a civil war people have kinda picked up on it. I 100% agree that optics are important here (which is one of the reasons I'm going for solid intervention), but the battle lines have already been drawn and our enemies have decided to make the move for us. If anything, getting the Brits in as peacekeeping forces will only give similar confidence and optics issues you're worried about, but with far, far less benefit of someone willing to fight on our side.

For what it's worth, the British also speak english and despite the pretenses also share cultural similarities; the same cannot necessarily be held to the same degree by assorted syndicalist international forces, and definitely cannot be held by the Germans and/or their colonial troops.

E:Tangentally, this shouldn't be misconstrued as an argument for MacArthur's plan; it was a high-risk high reward action that hinged upon relieving loyalists that didn't exist, and such a spectacular failure would probably result in worse crisis of confidence. Also I eventually voted against it, would be hypocritical otherwise

Frankly, we'll win this war with or without the Entente. The ones who need a deal isn't us, it's Canada. Why should we let them dictate terms to us? If they know what's best for them, they'll help us for nothing because the alternative is a CSA that won't allow a monarchy to their north or the German-aligned AUS. Frankly, I wouldn't want the Entente's help even then, but at least I'd consider it. As is, they're just a bunch of delusional vultures desperate for glory they'll never get back. We should kick Edward from his throne after the war just for the insult, it'd be far easier than invading Britain over the Atlantic.

[X] The US would not allow its sovereignty to be trampled on nor be a beggar power, it would win the war and defend its overseas territories on its own.

[X] Recognizing that the Federals needed serious assistance, the Cabinet had accepted the offer and the agreement would be signed by Olson and Hull.

[X] The US would not allow its sovereignty to be trampled on nor be a beggar power, it would win the war and defend its overseas territories on its own.

Unlike in HOI4, you can't invade across the Atlantic. That's how you get millions of men dead. The Entente are ridiculous and should not be entertained.

[X] The US would not allow its sovereignty to be trampled on nor be a beggar power, it would win the war and defend its overseas territories on its own.

[X] The US would not allow its sovereignty to be trampled on nor be a beggar power, it would win the war and defend its overseas territories on its own.

[X] Recognizing that the Federals needed serious assistance, the Cabinet had accepted the offer and the agreement would be signed by Olson and Hull.

[X] The Cabinet had a counter offer, formally asking that Canada join the Civil War on their side, launching military operations against the CSA, and in return when the time came to retake the Isles, the US would play an active role, essentially joining the Entente.

I frankly think the people still insisting that there can be some sort of negotiated settlement with the CSA are completely delusional. By joining the Entente, we effectively gain a worldwide sphere of influence due to the fact we'd be the only serious major power in it, and we're already implacably hostile to both the International and German Empire due to them actively supporting enemy factions in the civil war.

This is money on the table, at the cost of doing something we'd already want anyways. There are dozens of commie-quests on SV - if you can't stand the idea of playing a Federalist USA, please go and participate in one of the many alternatives available for your purview instead of actively trying to sabotage this one.

Let us consider the options.
Asking the Entente for aid will hurt the optics of the Federal government more than asking for foreign aid by the rebels. The socialists can justify asking foreign aid under the principle of socialist solidarity while radical right wingers have been always good at overlooking the flaws and hypocrisies of their leaders. The Federal Government will be accused of selling out to the British crown. On the other hand, the threat of the Canadian army crossing from Windsor into Detroit is a massive threat to the socialists. Normally, the US could ignore the Entente but we are in a poor spot at the moment.

[ ] The US would not allow its sovereignty to be trampled on nor be a beggar power, it would win the war and defend its overseas territories on its own.
The hardline approach. We reject Entente intervention. It is strongly implied that Canada will seize New England and other remaining territories with or without Federal approval. This approach might win over some Americans by standing up to foreign powers but it may alienate the Entente which is the only bloc willing to support the Federal government. Remember, losing territory to the British Crown anyway if we refuse Entente help also makes us look weak. Grants us the most freedom in policy in the aftermath of the Civil War if the Federalists win. If.
[ ] Recognizing that the Federals needed serious assistance, the Cabinet had accepted the offer and the agreement would be signed by Olson and Hull.
The standard option in a game of Kaiserreich. Canada takes New England, Alaska, and the Panama Canal for safekeeping from the socialists and other foreign powers like Germany. We are granted access to the industry of New England and a massive portion of America's gun industry of the time is located in Gun Valley in New England. Gun Valley supplies both the US and Canadian militaries and it would be a disaster if the socialists captured Gun Valley.
[ ] The Cabinet had a counter offer, formally asking that Canada join the Civil War on their side, launching military operations against the CSA, and in return when the time came to retake the Isles, the US would play an active role, essentially joining the Entente.
Asking for direct intervention. The Federal Government will be accused of selling out to the British crown. On the other hand, the threat of the Canadian army crossing from Windsor into Detroit is a massive threat to the socialists. Additionally, the Royal Canadian Navy can help us blockade New York. Yet again, the CSA does have influence in Canada through the Canadian branches of the IWW. In the Kaiserreich, the Canadian Wobblies can lead massive strikes to delay the start of the direct Canadian intervention. In here, such strikes might explode into the socialist revolution spreading into Canada. Also, if Canada directly intervenes in the Civil War, that gives license for Mexico to intervene by invading the Southwest.

In the long term, the US will be stronger than the whole Entente put together. It would be very easy to betray the Entente after the end of the Civil War by refusing to join even after a direct intervention (I did that once in a Kaiserreich session). Or the Entente could be turned into an American dominated and led alliance. No foreign policy objective of the Entente can be realistically achieved without the approval and support of the United States or Germany.

If we commit to direct war against the Third Internationale after the Civil War, it will basically lock us into a soft reconstruction of the South when the quest properly starts. There will be very strong pressure to pardon the talented generals of the AUS and to go soft on the South so the US can focus on fighting the Internationale.

Taut_Templar said:

I frankly think the people still insisting that there can be some sort of negotiated settlement with the CSA are completely delusional. By joining the Entente, we effectively gain a worldwide sphere of influence due to the fact we'd be the only serious major power in it, and we're already implacably hostile to both the International and German Empire due to them actively supporting enemy factions in the civil war.

This is money on the table, at the cost of doing something we'd already want anyways. There are dozens of commie-quests on SV - if you can't stand the idea of playing a Federalist USA, please go and participate in one of the many alternatives available for your purview instead of actively trying to sabotage this one.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The accusation of sabotage isn't appreciated.

Frankly, we're the USA, we'll have worldwide influence regardless of if we sell out to the Entente. And just because we're antagonistic towards the International doesn't mean we have any intention of invading Britain and France, any more than we have invading Germany. I have no illusions of a negotiated settlement with the CSA, but a civil war is no reason to sell out to Canada of all countries. We'll win without them.

[X] The Cabinet had a counter offer, formally asking that Canada join the Civil War on their side, launching military operations against the CSA, and in return when the time came to retake the Isles, the US would play an active role, essentially joining the Entente.

America fought the American Revolution with a tremendous amount of help from the Bourbon Dynasty. We fought the Second World War as part of a coalition that included Stalin.

The International and the Germans have already decided to be our enemies. It only makes sense to team up with their enemies.

To be blunt, I feel that people need to roleplay as their character rather than letting their own prejudices shape the story. 1930s America does not care whether the Entente powers are imperialist monarchists. They can be useful to us, and so we should side with them. Any arguments against this need to focus- as @Baltika9 does- on the possible PR costs of inviting foreign help in an American civil war Which I believe are real, even if our enemies are also doing it.

This is not a Communist Quest. We are playing as the federal government representing the American people, and the Syndicalists are our enemies. They chose to "disband the people and elect another", and the responsibility for this war falls upon them.

"Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it our people have already settled - the successful establishing and the successful administering of it. One still remains - its successful maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. It is now for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carry an election can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets; that there can no be no successful appeal except to ballots themselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election neither can they take by a war; teaching all the folly of being the beginners of a war."

Theaxofwar said:

The accusation of sabotage isn't appreciated.

Frankly, we're the USA, we'll have worldwide influence regardless of if we sell out to the Entente. And just because we're antagonistic towards the International doesn't mean we have any intention of invading Britain and France, any more than we have invading Germany. I have no illusions of a negotiated settlement with the CSA, but a civil war is no reason to sell out to Canada of all countries. We'll win without them.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

How is accepting an alliance "selling out" to the Entente? What are we giving up? What does this cost us besides the possibility of bad optics, and how could it possibly compare to the benefit of Canada's participation in the 2ACW, not to mention how it gives us a post-war sphere of influence? What does this even lock us into?!? There is literally nothing forcing us to keep our promise after the war is over should supporting a restoration look to be a losing prospect.

Taut_Templar said:

How is accepting an alliance "selling out" to the Entente? What are we giving up? What does this cost us besides the possibility of bad optics, and how could it possibly compare to the benefit of Canada's participation in the 2ACW, not to mention how it gives us a post-war sphere of influence? What does this even lock us into?!? There is literally nothing forcing us to keep our promise after the war is over should supporting a restoration look to be a losing prospect.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Then there's what happens if we successfully restore them... We would have a stranglehold of influence, debt and investment, it would bring us to the next level of power.

Taut_Templar said:

There is literally nothing forcing us to keep our promise after the war is over should supporting a restoration look to be a losing prospect.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I'm of the opinion that throwing Canadian Bodies at our Problem in the CSA is a bargin so we can have breathing room.

Not only that but it would also give us access to their RnD know-how...or rather what amount we can actually use.

Ghostdevil said:

Then there's what happens if we successfully restore them... We would have a stranglehold of influence, debt and investment, it would bring us to the next level of power.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Marshal Plan the shit out of their Reconstruction...it'll be good for the economy I swear! While we're at it we'll add France to the plan too.

They have money to get in debt with!

[X] The US would not allow its sovereignty to be trampled on nor be a beggar power, it would win the war and defend its overseas territories on its own.

Ghostdevil said:

Then there's what happens if we successfully restore them... We would have a stranglehold of influence, debt and investment, it would bring us to the next level of power.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The International is going to be locked into a conflict with the Reichspakt - combined with loyalists that remain in France and Germany, the Entente possesses a solid chance of winning even without the United States in their corner. With our support, I fully believe we can put them back on the mainland and be able to contest continental Europe from the German Empire in the Cold War that would inevitably ensue.

[X] Recognizing that the Federals needed serious assistance, the Cabinet had accepted the offer and the agreement would be signed by Olson and Hull.

Promising to outright join the Entente postwar and assist in the Invasion of Britain is not a policy we should be willing to commit to right now, we will be in the midst of a painful reconstruction. It's much easier to stomach this sort of benevolent neutrality sort of arrangement in the postwar, retaining a great deal of flexibility in exchange for much needed support now.

It would be very unwise to completely alienate the Entente, the threat of a northern front against the CSA diminishes greatly if we and Canada are coming to blows over things that are essentially going to be fait accomplis anyways. We have no real ability at this moment to prevent Canada from seizing Alaska or New England, and probably not the Panama Canal either. It is for the best that this is done under our nominal permission. While our navy is not under a permanent state of duress with the destruction of oil at Norfolk, the prospect of the USN and the RN in preventing Internationale shipments from flowing into the CSA is much more threatening than just the USN at the moment and the sooner that tap can be cut off the better in a fashion similar to the Neutrality Patrols that enforced what amounted to a blockade on the Spanish Republicans in the Spanish Civil War.

The value of not allowing the CSA to gain access to New England truly is very significant, by my count in our territory there are only 2 major small arms manufacturers, Browning, and Remington, the latter of which seems quite likely to fall into Longist hands soon. New England is the physical location of Winchester Arms, Springfield Armory, Colt, Savage Arms, The Underwood Typewriter Company(retooled and produced half a million of M1 Carbines during WW2), Smith & Wesson, The Ithaca Gun Company, etc.

This option provides the best balance of flexibility and for the most immediate benefit. It's too early to tie our fortunes completely with the Entente with a blank check like that, but we also can't afford to turn away helping hands.

[X] Recognizing that the Federals needed serious assistance, the Cabinet had accepted the offer and the agreement would be signed by Olson and Hull.

We can really use the help right now, but I think the counteroffer is pushing our luck too much, makes us look too weak, and might prove a burden in the future.

There is literally no benefit I can think of that trumps getting Canada involved, they would help end the war sooner, reconstruction faster, gives us a large sphere of influence as the largest economy, we can alter pretty much any deal due to our strength once it's not under civil war. The drawbacks are basically non existent compared to the other options which have massive, obvious and immediate ones.

[X] The US would not allow its sovereignty to be trampled on nor be a beggar power, it would win the war and defend its overseas territories on its own