Remove ads

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

Reader mode
[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.

Entente, Pakt, Syndies... We'll win this and then take them all on! We'll show what happens when you fuck with the US!
 
Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of writing the Entente a blank check. If it seems possible to overthrow the Syndicalists in Britain and if we can do so without too much risk, then we'll join the effort. "Invade the British Isles" is a vague idea, not a short-term objective, and we reserve the right to bail.

Projecting power across the Atlantic is absurdly difficult. Our goal is to reclaim our own country; the idea of American boots in London is a very distant possibility, and the idea of American boots in Paris is absurd. We're in this for America, not to declare war on World Syndicalism.
 
dptullos said:
Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of writing the Entente a blank check. If it seems possible to overthrow the Syndicalists in Britain and if we can do so without too much risk, then we'll join the effort. "Invade the British Isles" is a vague idea, not a short-term objective, and we reserve the right to bail.

Projecting power across the Atlantic is absurdly difficult. Our goal is to reclaim our own country; the idea of American boots in London is a very distant possibility, and the idea of American boots in Paris is absurd. We're in this for America, not to declare war on World Syndicalism.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agreed, Restoration is a PLUS, not a requirement.
 
dptullos said:
Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of writing the Entente a blank check. If it seems possible to overthrow the Syndicalists in Britain and if we can do so without too much risk, then we'll join the effort. "Invade the British Isles" is a vague idea, not a short-term objective, and we reserve the right to bail.

Projecting power across the Atlantic is absurdly difficult. Our goal is to reclaim our own country; the idea of American boots in London is a very distant possibility, and the idea of American boots in Paris is absurd. We're in this for America, not to declare war on World Syndicalism.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well I will say, we do have some comittments with this, namely providing them massive resources on a reduced check to make the invasion possible. And given the circumstances of the war, we are going to have some ever lasting enmity, until at least like the late 60s, but agreed, if we're forced to take on the entire European continent or something, we should at the very least reconsider.
 
Earl Warren said:
in the old international order, you at least didn't have to suffer the presence of nations who have basically decided that only Socialist states should be allowed the decent rights of nations, who feel it is fine to send thousands of soldiers to overthrow democratically elected governments because well, they didn't choose Socialism. This may not of started as our war, but the reds in Paris and London have decided to make it ours. It's not our fault they so badly want to give American boys an all expenses payed free tour of London and Paris.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Instead, you had capitalist nations who wouldn't suffer the presence of nations unaligned to their own imperial interests and feel it fine to send thousands, if not millions of their citizens to die in a pointless, imperialist war for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. There was also the decades of colonialism and the part where they sent tons of support to the Russian Whites (who were a band of fascist mass murderers btw) so that they would crush the Bolsheviks after the Russian people decided they didn't want to take part in their imperial war games anymore.
Ghostdevil said:
Their assholes actively interfering in our affairs, their AT BEST just the Old Government with red paint.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The exiles want the world completely under the boot of their imperialist sphere, while the syndicalists want to free the world of capitalism and ensure that the world of endless wars for the sake of imperialist prestige never happens again. I think the difference between the two is quite clear, especially when the SPA revolted when (from their POV) the federal government has completely failed at actually protecting the workers when the National Guard went against their authority and murdered striking workers.
 
Starblight said:
The exiles want the world completely under the boot of their imperialist sphere, while the syndicalists want to free the world of capitalism and ensure that the world of endless wars for the sake of imperialist prestige never happens again. I think the difference between the two is quite clear, especially when the SPA revolted when (from their POV) the federal government has completely failed at actually protecting the workers when the National Guard went against their authority and murdered striking workers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ahh yes, Its imperialism when YOU do it not when I do it. Such difference truly.
 
Starblight said:
It's not my fault you are incapable of seeing the difference between capitalist imperialism and socialist liberation (especially when the CoF and UoB are democracies and not the same as the USSR).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Their literally sending people over here to Murder People, for their OWN political ambitions. Their Imperialists with Red Paint.
They ALSO want to start a second World War for Revanchism.
 
Ghostdevil said:
They ALSO want to start a second World War for Revanchism.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah I've personally had a tough time trying to be Sympathetic to the guy' who (most of the time given RnG) start this world's equivalent of WW2...

And that's just my experience from playing, also, I like the storylines and events in Germany and non Syndicalist nations better (Especially with the newest update) but that's just me.
 
Cyberphilosipher said:
And that's just my experience from playing, also, I like the storylines and events in Germany and non Syndicalist nations better (Especially with the newest update) but that's just me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In my experience Syndicalists just don't feel good to play, its been a while since i've played the mod, but the Totalist events are funny but other than that their a bit... idk. I just don't feel connected to the nation, though thats the reason i tend to play the US when possible.
 
Starblight said:
There was also the decades of colonialism and the part where they sent tons of support to the Russian Whites (who were a band of fascist mass murderers btw) so that they would crush the Bolsheviks after the Russian people decided they didn't want to take part in their imperial war games anymore.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I really don't think you can claim in the OTL that the Bolsheviks had the support of the whole of the Russian people even leaving aside that some of Lenin's most effective soldiers in the early part of the Civil War had to be "Liquidated" when they started to disagree with the Party Line.

We also don't really have a the moment a better choice of Allies when both the Major sides in Europe have decided that they want to be actively involved in our Civil Conflict. Also the things that meant all sides did not get to heavily involved in the Spanish Civil War don't apply here. Distance will give the Europeans issues but non that would stop them from sending a good amount of support and the U.S Navy is not in the state where it could shut those supply lines down well.
 
Earl Warren said:
Well I will say, we do have some comittments with this, namely providing them massive resources on a reduced check to make the invasion possible. And given the circumstances of the war, we are going to have some ever lasting enmity, until at least like the late 60s, but agreed, if we're forced to take on the entire European continent or something, we should at the very least reconsider.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Is the invasion possible at all?

The Syndicalists control Britain, including the shipyards. They take their navy seriously. We would be attempting an invasion across the Atlantic, which would make D-Day look like a walk in the park. That's a distance of more than three thousand miles, and they would have land-based aircraft to support their fleet.

I'm pretty sure that "Canada invades the British Isles" is pure fantasy. "Canada and America invade the British Isles" is slightly more realistic, but I don't like those odds.

Starblight said:
Instead, you had capitalist nations who wouldn't suffer the presence of nations unaligned to their own imperial interests and feel it fine to send thousands, if not millions of their citizens to die in a pointless, imperialist war for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. There was also the decades of colonialism and the part where they sent tons of support to the Russian Whites (who were a band of fascist mass murderers btw) so that they would crush the Bolsheviks after the Russian people decided they didn't want to take part in their imperial war games anymore.

The exiles want the world completely under the boot of their imperialist sphere, while the syndicalists want to free the world of capitalism and ensure that the world of endless wars for the sake of imperialist prestige never happens again. I think the difference between the two is quite clear, especially when the SPA revolted when (from their POV) the federal government has completely failed at actually protecting the workers when the National Guard went against their authority and murdered striking workers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Syndicalists want to free the world from democratically elected governments that don't agree with them.

Olsen was elected by the people. Shall you dissolve the people, and elect another?

allpoetry.com

The Solution by Bertolt Brecht

Comments & analysis: After the uprising of the 17th June / The Secretary of the Writers Union
allpoetry.com allpoetry.com

Starblight said:
It's not my fault you seem to be incapable of seeing the difference between capitalist imperialism and socialist liberation (especially when the CoF and UoB are democracies and not the same as the USSR).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ah, the joyful socialist liberation experienced by the people of the Baltics. There are also a great many Poles who can tell you all about the "liberation" they experienced.

Well, not anyone who was at Katyn. They weren't in a position to testify.

No, the CoF and the UoB are not the same as the USSR. But they're definitely engaged in some serious tankie behavior right now. Are they going to "liberate" the American people from self-government?

The people of the United States elected their leaders. Now the Syndicalists wish to overturn the results of the ballot box with the cartridge box. Olsen was extremely willing to negotiate with them, but they don't believe that elections count if they don't win.
 
dptullos said:
The people of the United States elected their leaders. Now the Syndicalists wish to overturn the results of the ballot box with the cartridge box. Olsen was extremely willing to negotiate with them, but they don't believe that elections count if they don't win.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Right wing has a better reason to revolt than the Socialists (well i mean 0 x anything is still 0 but disregarding that for a moment lol) since we tried to appease the left to almost an extraordinary extent.
 
I'm going to be honest, any election in the 1930s USA is going to have huge quotation marks around the phrase free and fair. You know, because of segregation and all.

That's leaving aside all the violence and bribery that was explicitly mentioned by the QM.

Or the fact that as far as I can tell, there was no left-wing attempt to overthrow the government until nominally federalized troops received orders to shoot striking workers and peaceful protesters.
 
notbirdofprey said:
Or the fact that as far as I can tell, there was no left-wing attempt to overthrow the government until nominally federalized troops received orders to shoot striking workers and peaceful protesters.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Its hard to blame the Feds because the left and right wings of society decided to go outright treasonous and cause constant issues. So i'd say it was noone's explicit fault for the start.
Well we can blame Ford.
 
dptullos said:
The Syndicalists want to free the world from capitalist governments that are always going to be opposed to them no matter what in the long-term.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
FTFY. It's also pretty hilarious you're using a Bertolt Brecht poem as an own, when the man himself was a Marxist who wrote plays openly satirizing capitalism.
Ghostdevil said:
Its hard to blame the Feds because the left and right wings of society decided to go outright treasonous and cause constant issues. So i'd say it was noone's explicit fault for the start.
Well we can blame Ford.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd say it's pretty easy to blame the Feds given that they're the ones who were supposed to be controlling those troops and completely failed at that, which cost those striking workers their lives.
 
Last edited:
dptullos said:
Is the invasion possible at all?

The Syndicalists control Britain, including the shipyards. They take their navy seriously. We would be attempting an invasion across the Atlantic, which would make D-Day look like a walk in the park. That's a distance of more than three thousand miles, and they would have land-based aircraft to support their fleet.

I'm pretty sure that "Canada invades the British Isles" is pure fantasy. "Canada and America invade the British Isles" is slightly more realistic, but I don't like those odds.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, look at it this way, human history is full of monumental feats pulled off by people determined enough to get it done, some even more astonishing than the one we'd be trying. If things shake out our way, particularly if we can get France first, then yeah, I consider it possible. But likely? No.

dptullos said:
Well, not anyone who was at Katyn. They weren't in a position to testify.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Important Addendum to this: if the Syndies in Chicago in fact decide that Robesspiere, and Lenin and all the other heroic forebears of the Revolution weren't wrong about the Terror bit, the UOB and French will still back them to the hilt. Both on idealogical grounds (All in for socialism, all unpleasantness can be excused by local conditions) and on practical grounds (America in their camp is more than worth a hundred Katyns). Pretty typical Geopolitical stuff but just that, pretty typical.
 
Starblight said:
I'd say it's pretty easy to blame the Feds given that they're the ones who were supposed to be controlling those troops and completely failed at that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because the Socialists, the corporations AND the Longists (and the racists to can't forget them) are manipulating and fighting against us the whole way. The Federal Troops are not 100% loyal to those they are supposed to serve. So on one hand yes, The Feds should have had more control, but they didn't and couldn't.
On the other hand, the critical rebellion precedented by the Rebellious Left and Right are the fundamental problem that made the Troops so difficult to control.

Edit: tho technically i blame the idiot ball that the US had in KR that led them to this anyways :p.
 
Last edited:
Starblight said:
FTFY. It's also pretty hilarious you're using a Bertolt Brecht poem as an own, when the man himself was a Marxist who wrote plays openly satirizing capitalism.

I'd say it's pretty easy to blame the Feds given that they're the ones who were supposed to be controlling those troops and completely failed at that, which cost those striking workers their lives.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You do realize that being opposed to syndicalism is not a crime? America hadn't done anything to Britain or France when they started trying to overthrow our government.

Why would it be hilarious that I'm using Brecht? Whatever he wrote about capitalism, this poem is about socialists. Particularly the kind of socialists who want to use guns to "dissolve the people and elect another".

Hmm, it's almost like there's a far-right party dedicated to overthrowing the democratically elected government, and the soldiers decided to disobey their orders. There are many justifiable responses to that, but "YOLO screw democracy we have guns" is not one of them. The only reason the Syndicalists are at war with the government is because they chose to be at war. If they weren't engaged in an armed rebellion, the federal government would have a much easier time suppressing the South.

This is what being a tankie means. Elections don't count unless you win them, and if the people vote for capitalism then we'll replace them with The People, who will agree with socialism.

Outside of the imaginary world of Kaiserreich, the grand project of "socialist liberation" ended with the Berlin Wall coming down.

Earl Warren said:
Well, look at it this way, human history is full of monumental feats pulled off by people determined enough to get it done, some even more astonishing than the one we'd be trying. If things shake out our way, particularly if we can get France first, then yeah, I consider it possible. But likely? No.

Important Addendum to this: if the Syndies in Chicago in fact decide that Robesspiere, and Lenin and all the other heroic forebears of the Revolution weren't wrong about the Terror bit, the UOB and French will still back them to the hilt. Both on idealogical grounds (All in for socialism, all unpleasantness can be excused by local conditions) and on practical grounds (America in their camp is more than worth a hundred Katyns). Pretty typical Geopolitical stuff but just that, pretty typical.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No?

Determination does not allow you to conduct an opposed landing across three thousand miles of water. That would require the direct intervention of God Almighty.

How on Earth would we "get France first"? They're a major nation. They have a serious army. The D-Day landings required vast resources, along with total control of the sea and air, and we were invading across the English Channel.
 
dptullos said:
You do realize that being opposed to syndicalism is not a crime? America hadn't done anything to Britain or France when they started trying to overthrow our government.

Why would it be hilarious that I'm using Brecht? Whatever he wrote about capitalism, this poem is about socialists. Particularly the kind of socialists who want to use guns to "dissolve the people and elect another".

Hmm, it's almost like there's a far-right party dedicated to overthrowing the democratically elected government, and the soldiers decided to disobey their orders. There are many justifiable responses to that, but "YOLO screw democracy we have guns" is not one of them. The only reason the Syndicalists are at war with the government is because they chose to be at war. If they weren't engaged in an armed rebellion, the federal government would have a much easier time suppressing the South.

This is what being a tankie means. Elections don't count unless you win them, and if the people vote for capitalism then we'll replace them with The People, who will agree with socialism.

Outside of the imaginary world of Kaiserreich, the grand project of "socialist liberation" ended with the Berlin Wall coming down.



No?

Determination does not allow you to conduct an opposed landing across three thousand miles of water. That would require the direct intervention of God Almighty.

How on Earth would we "get France first"? They're a major nation. They have a serious army. The D-Day landings required vast resources, along with total control of the sea and air, and we were invading across the English Channel.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The only feasible way of invading France would require the invasion of Britain before that, which would require us getting Ireland into the Entente.
 
01paradox01 said:
I mean, I could see a combined Entente/American Navy being able to dunk on the Brits, but it'd require a lot of work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We would be fighting at the end of a three thousand mile long supply chain. They would be fighting in range of land-based air. If they adopted the novel strategy of "hide behind a minefield", we would have to go home before we ran out of fuel.

If the British Navy magically disappeared, we would still be supporting an invading army three thousand miles from home, with America shipping bullets and shells from New York while their factories are next door. The logistics involved would be absurd. We had difficulty with the D-Day landings, and we had years to build up stockpiles of supplies and establish dominance of the air and the sea.
 
dptullos said:
No?

Determination does not allow you to conduct an opposed landing across three thousand miles of water. That would require the direct intervention of God Almighty.

How on Earth would we "get France first"? They're a major nation. They have a serious army. The D-Day landings required vast resources, along with total control of the sea and air, and we were invading across the English Channel.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're right, I regret to inform all concerned that I was posssed by the spirit of Winston Churchill when making those comments. Sad, I know, but not canceable.
 
dptullos said:
We would be fighting at the end of a three thousand mile long supply chain. They would be fighting in range of land-based air. If they adopted the novel strategy of "hide behind a minefield", we would have to go home before we ran out of fuel.

If the British Navy magically disappeared, we would still be supporting an invading army three thousand miles from home, with America shipping bullets and shells from New York while their factories are next door. The logistics involved would be absurd. We had difficulty with the D-Day landings, and we had years to build up stockpiles of supplies and establish dominance of the air and the sea.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Atlantic is much less wide than the pacific, and yet the United States was able to fight the Japanese navy effectively. We can simply refuel in Iceland, or the Azores if Portugal joins us. As for the thousands of miles of supply lines, did you read what I previously wrote? Or are you just conviently ignoring it? If we can get Ireland into the Entente, which shouldn't be impossible with Ireland's ties to the US, we can 'easily' supply our invasion.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top