Springtime of Nations II: A European Republic Quest

[] ...And Serbia, too.
Serbia has a long-standing desire to unite the South Slavs under a single national banner and this represents their best chance in a long, long time. Indulging even a portion of their ambitions will win you much influence and friendship among both the Serbian leadership and their pan-nationalist population.
Would the underlined still hold true if they were required to be democratic, or a republic?
 
Is there anything in particular we would actually gain by letting the itty bitty baby countries play in the sandbox here? I mean, they would like us more, but would that make it easier for us to insert operatives, incite discontent, and smuggle guns?
 
Is there anything in particular we would actually gain by letting the itty bitty baby countries play in the sandbox here? I mean, they would like us more, but would that make it easier for us to insert operatives, incite discontent, and smuggle guns?

I think it'll dilute entente and Russian weight by forcing them to talk to a lot of different people if they want to form an anti republican front in the conference. It's not like they're ideologically worse than the Entente or Russia either.

Plus it will be funny.


On another topic: I don't really see the point of insisting on republics if they're going to be Entente or Russia aligned anyway. We should invest all our leverage in getting the as much of the empire put under our care instead, because I consider the parts they'll put in their sphere a loss regardless of political system.
 

A reference map for the territories in question. The Alliance controls Slovakia (pale blue), Hungary (light green), Slavonia (dark blue), and Croatia (lime green). The "eastern" territories are Dalmatia (light blue), Bosnia (kind of a tan-salmon thing), Vojvodina (red), Banat (brown), and Transylvania (khaki?).
 
Last edited:
In terms of territory, we want to control at least Hungary Proper (including Slovakia), and Banat, as these are the territories which command the Danube. We also want to control Croatia to fulfill whatever promises we've made to Istria. We don't care very much about Dalmatia, Bosnia, Slavonia, or Transylvania, except insofar as Transylvania should remain independent and republican in order to fuck over Romania unless it goes republican (which it won't in the context of this conference, but might do later).

That is, as long as Hungary was an Alliance-aligned republic, we could live with something like:



Even if the mega-Bosnia joined Serbia. Though obviously we'd prefer they didn't.
 
Last edited:
@Etranger will we be able to spend our leverage in securing republics even if we don't pick the option saying that only republics are acceptable? As it is, I read it as the bottom floor but we should be able to spend leverage on making more areas ours to reorganize, right? And this bottom floor only matter for areas the conference grant to other powers to annex or put in their sphere. Is that correct?
 
[] Plan: Reforging the East (8 Leverage carried into next round)
-[] What the hell, invite everyone.
-[] ...And the territories must be democratic.
-[] Let's take this point-by-point.

The central idea behind this plan is to institute democratic governance across as much of Southeastern Europe as possible as part of a reappraisal of the entire region. Democratic governance would be intended to serve as a wedge to start breaking down the local power structures, and would need to be paired with immediate and continuing German efforts continuing from here. This is definitely not a fire-and-forget plan, and involves a degree of pre-committing to putting effort toward influence and manipulation of the region in order to flip it in peace-time, since we're not going to be able to flip it during the war. If doing that seems like it'd have too much of an opportunity cost in your estimation, then this is a bad plan for you.
 


I shall not disdain to hide my motives regarding The Long Con, for it is the achievement of maximalist danoooob!
 
@Etranger will we be able to spend our leverage in securing republics even if we don't pick the option saying that only republics are acceptable? As it is, I read it as the bottom floor but we should be able to spend leverage on making more areas ours to reorganize, right? And this bottom floor only matter for areas the conference grant to other powers to annex or put in their sphere. Is that correct?

Correct.
 
I think we should realpolitik this one:

[] What the hell, invite everyone.
[] No strings attached to any transfers.
[] ...But just for the east.

Doing things idealistically is going to be a massive pain. Territory we control is territory whom we can practically bring through the democratic process and actually influence to be on our side when we fight the Entente.
 
The Entente wants to balkanize the territories of the former austrian empire so anything resembling a Danubian Federation is likely to cost too much leverage, that said, there's an easy way to avoid said expense. By creating a (more democratic) European Union with our republican sister republics and the recently liberated republics we could achieve a bigger Federation without having to negociate with the Entente.​

Edit: We could even make it seem harmless to the Entente by simply not subsuming the Alliance High Command (or however it is that we call our military coordination organization). With a bit of propaganda we could even sell the Union as a peace project even.
 
Last edited:
[] Plan maximum reconstruction budget
-[] ...And Serbia, too.
-[] No strings attached to any transfers. (+2 leverage)
-[] ...But just for the east. (-4 leverage)

The goal is to attempt to maximize the area we get to put under our reconstruction authority. I don't really care if the Entente or Russia aligned allocation is a new monarchy, a bourgeois republic or part of one of the existing balkan minors. What I care about is doing as much reconstruction as possible to put as many people as possible under a liberated radical banner, where the reconstructed material conditions will ensure their interests are aligned with us and against the bourgeois and aristocratic states.

We spend 4 leverage on ruling out giving back anything we occupy then plan to use targeted concessions to secure a free hand for reconstruction in as much of the ex-empire as we can in the next phase of the conference.
 
[] Plan maximum reconstruction budget
-[] ...And Serbia, too.
-[] No strings attached to any transfers. (+2 leverage)
-[] ...But just for the east. (-4 leverage)
I like this plan. We aren't going to win everything right now regardless of what we do, but maximizing the amount of people who are in our bloc for the next conflict would be ideal.
 
Really enjoying these conference votes. It's fun to have to think strategically about how we handle such a major shift in European politics. Not sure how I'll vote but In the spirit of democracy I will be voting. It's how we won the war y'know!
 
[] Plan maximum reconstruction budget
-[] ...And Serbia, too.
-[] No strings attached to any transfers. (+2 leverage)
-[] ...But just for the east. (-4 leverage)

The goal is to attempt to maximize the area we get to put under our reconstruction authority. I don't really care if the Entente or Russia aligned allocation is a new monarchy, a bourgeois republic or part of one of the existing balkan minors. What I care about is doing as much reconstruction as possible to put as many people as possible under a liberated radical banner, where the reconstructed material conditions will ensure their interests are aligned with us and against the bourgeois and aristocratic states.

We spend 4 leverage on ruling out giving back anything we occupy then plan to use targeted concessions to secure a free hand for reconstruction in as much of the ex-empire as we can in the next phase of the conference.
I'm in favour of the last two points, but why invite Serbia? They'd likely be asking for the other side of the Danube, which would cut us off.
 
I'm in favour of the last two points, but why invite Serbia? They'd likely be asking for the other side of the Danube, which would cut us off.
FWIW, any part of Banat is a low-priority ask for Serbia. What they most want is access to the sea. In terms of how this can be had from Habsburg territory only (i.e., excluding the possibility of union with Montenegro), they'll be asking first of all for Dalmatia, and Bosnia as a way to connect with it.
 
I'm in favour of the last two points, but why invite Serbia? They'd likely be asking for the other side of the Danube, which would cut us off.

As @Zimmerwald1915 said.

It's more options for concessions to a country that will owe us rather than the entente for giving it to them if we need leverage in the conference to secure more areas to reconstruct. if people think the Serbs' demands are likely to be things we shouldn't grant (for example if you think we should aim to take Dalmatia, which I think is fair, or if you're worried about them doing gamer moves on the Bosnians), I'm willing to throw in a plan version without Serbia. I don't like the fact that the middle option require basically picking a side between Serbia and the league minors so I'll propose the basic one.

[] Plan less messy maximum reconstruction budget
-[] We will invite Britain, France, and Russia.
-[] No strings attached to any transfers. (+2 leverage)
-[] ...But just for the east. (-4 leverage)


Edit: just vote for this, it's the same and was posted first:
[] Plan The Long Con

We'll probably end up with a little bit less leverage by having less sides to play off of each other but it'll also be more straightforward. I'll probably approval vote both.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top