Remove ads

Springtime of Nations II: A European Republic Quest

Reader mode
Ruthenia is ultimately a different Latinization of Russia. Using Ukraine, a more specific name for the region, is a means of differentiating the southern culture with its roots in Kyiv from the northern one that is largely dominated by Moscow, and would likely be the same in this alternate timeline if a similar nationalist project occurs.
 
[X] We will guarantee enduring democracy with an extended reconstruction process.

If we want to end it early due to believing it is done, we can always decide to do so. But it's dangerous to go too short.
 
Regency said:
On the vote itself I'm a bit torn, but picking the vote option below for now after looking back onto the consequences of sub-optimal reconstruction in the First Republic and a comparatively successful reconstruction in the USA (with even the right-wing GOP being in a moderate liberal-social liberal continuum by the era's standards AFAIK). I think we'll just have to bite the bullet to rinse out the power of the absolutist Tsarist/less absolutist autocractic Hasburg

...the action also spread out annual expenses, which is more helpful for government budgeting than a lower but less spread out annual expense
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To add to the above, different areas will likely require different length of reconstruction. It's very possible some regions will reach what the Alliance's politicans, civil service, and influential non-state groups (e.g. labor unions likely connected thru pan-Alliance industrial labor confederation) envision in a 12-year period within 8 years.

As we players play the Assembly in peacetime, we could very well place a plank proposing to our not-currently-reconstructing Alliance members (the number which could expand if some reconstructing members completes their reconstruction faster than their peers) to ending reconstruction by year 8, 9, etc before the maximum period. Provided we hear news/report about how by x alliance member's reconstruction looks to be completed x years early
 
I expect for the Ruthenian Republic in East Galicia to rename itself soon as use of Ruthenian label is quickly falling out of favor in favor of Ukrainian instead at this point in history.
 
Last edited:
[X] We will balance all concerns with a typical reconstruction process.

If it was just a matter of how long we will commit to funnelling money into rebuilding the area I'd go for twelve years, but this is also how long we're going to be restricting their freedoms in the name of educating them in proper socialist principles. We shouldn't hold them back for so long they consider it onerous or patronizing.
 
BoredStudent1414 said:
I expect for the Ruthenian Republic in East Galicia to rename itself soon as use of Ruthenian label is quickly falling out of favor in favor of Ukrainian instead at this point in history.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Alternatively, history could go some other way (in an alternate history? perish the thought!), and "Ruthenian" could take on a different meaning divorced entirely from its etymological roots.
 
Etranger said:
Unfortunately, the border-redrawing exercise proved excessively contentious, and so I've elected to bypass it entirely. Apologies to anyone who was looking forward to it, but the structure was unworkable. Also, I think these borders look rather nice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But I was looking forward to map painting :(

[X] We will balance all concerns with a typical reconstruction process.
Okay, going against the grain here, but even typical reconstruction is already 8 years. Isn't that already longer than German's own post-civil war reconstruction process? I don't think going for another four more years would do anything more that won't already be done in eight. After a certain point, any gain in institutionalise republican regime would be negate by association of those regimes with period of foreign occupation.
 
IamtooSleepy said:
any gain in institutionalise republican regime would be negate by association of those regimes with period of foreign occupation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, because
1. The QM said it would help further the process and properly bring democracy so it is not over the top or useless over spending. The loss of opinion will probably be minor and the long term benefits for out way a minor and probably short lived opinion loss in the general population.
2. It is at worst a joint 'occupation' by Germany and whatever republic they are rebuilding in, there is an actual government there that we are helping to set up. With the longer rebuilding effort we can make sure that it is done well and thoroughly as well as making sure the new government is stable, this isn't a military occupation of a foreign land that does not want us there but rather is a rebuilding effort more akin to the marshal plan with the addition of helping them set up there government.

Edit: Grammar and expanding the first point.
 
Last edited:
[X] We will guarantee enduring democracy with an extended reconstruction process.
 
[X] We will balance all concerns with a typical reconstruction process.

The locals literally don't want an extended one, and this one is still good people. The extended one just speaks of us not trusting the Poles to do things right.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
[X] We will balance all concerns with a typical reconstruction process.

the amount of imperialists in this vote worries me, we have no right to impose our way of life on the new republics. we liberated them so that they had the right to choose how to proceed. all im seeing is people clamoring to rebuild nations into subject states. an 8 year reconstruction is more than sufficient and will apease the local peoples. Meanwhile a 12 year process is nothing more than a sham to install puppet governments and create resentment among the people. we promised freedom, we killed for freedom, we bled for freedom and we died for freedom. the culmination of our victory , the legacy of our sacrifices can not be tainted with the hawkish imperialist ambitions.
 
EinPigeon said:
Not quite, the QM refered to it as being:


so at worst the people have mixed opinions and it is a bit controversal. It is not avid dislike or even hatred, just a bit of controversy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Does it change the fact that they don't like it? Lets at least trust the poles to do right by themselves before imposing a longer reconstruction process on them. It almost seems like we're being patronizing.
 
01paradox01 said:
Does it change the fact that they don't like it? Lets at least trust the poles to do right by themselves before imposing a longer reconstruction process on them. It almost seems like we're being patronizing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think you misunderstand, we do trust them and we are letting them decide on their government anything otherwise would be against the very spirit of the nation we are playing. What we are doing is a Thorough Reconstruction of their nation once again like the marshal plan and ensuring stability for the future. The temporary controversy is far worth the amount of gain for out sister republics.

Edit: Grammar and expansion on peoples opinion.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top