Remove ads

Springtime of Nations II: A European Republic Quest

Reader mode
Regency said:
Reminder that we're gonna let local authorities decide - and at this point in time in the region (former Habsburg Empire) that means local aristocrats and high capitalists instead of being representative of the majority workers and peasants.

Another reminder is that we didn't pick the "they will all be republics" option in the first part of the Second Vienna Conference.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, not really high capitalists, these are very peasant regions with not very much urbanization or modernization at all, but yes you are correct. In fact a large part of these local authorities will be the nobility along with former Austrian officials from these regions, as well as ethnic and religious leaders. A pretty fundamentally conservative grouping here and one that would be a great danger to our interests if we allow them to decide the fate of the Romanian frontier.
 
[] Plan: Securing the Balkan Frontier (-1 Leverage)
-[] Transylvania should reside within the Allied sphere.
-[] Banat should reside within the Allied sphere.
-[] Bosnia can go its own way.
-[] Dalmatia should reside within the Allied sphere.
-[] Serbia should reside within the Allied sphere.
-[] Montenegro can go its own way.

A modified version of my first plan that better secures the Romanian frontier while letting us restrain/control any Serbian designs on Montenegro.

Regional possibilities imo go as follows:

Bosnia remains independent, giving the Entente a state sandwiched by Allied-alligned Sorbia and Italy while also lacking its would-be major seaports

Parts of Bosnia votes to join Sorbia, which would be under our sphere while other parts remain independent in which case see Option A, with a worse hand for the Entente

Montenegro goes under Serbian influence, which we'd have the final say on

Montenegro gets propped up by the Entente, in which case they get checked by joint threat of Serbia and Dalmatia while also just not being all that potent compared to Serbia.
 
Last edited:
Astra Myst said:
[] Plan: Securing the Balkan Frontier (0 Leverage)
-[] Transylvania should reside within the Allied sphere.
-[] Banat should reside within the Allied sphere.
-[] Bosnia can go its own way.
-[] Dalmatia should reside within the Allied sphere.
-[] Serbia should reside within the Allied sphere.
-[] Montenegro can go its own way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This plan is -1 leverage btw
 
HanEmpire said:
What will happen if we let all of them go their own way? Just give away a ton of leverage for nothing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A shining diplomatic reputation / being taken for an idiot (what's the difference really) after dissolving the Hapsburgs as a political entity and leave everything to chance/Entente influence depending on your optimism.
 
I am firmly AGAINST having Serbia /Montenegro in our block, we have been told that we cannot force them to become republics and having ANY monarchies in our block severely compromises its mission statement. There is Realpolitik and there is shooting yourself in the foot, and taking those two is definitely shooting ourselves in the foot. I am also against walking away from these negotiations with a positive balance, that would mean pissing away our gains from this war for essentially no reason.

Random's plan is the best I have seen so far.
 
Last edited:
Drieder said:
Yeah its not a very good signal to our friends and allies abroad, especially in colonial nations.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think colonial populations are inherently opposed to the institution of monarchy. Their problems with France and Britain are not really about whether Victoria is a Queen or Napoleon IV is an Emperor, they are about colonialism and empire. Most intellectuals of subject peoples in this period were rather optimistic and approving of Japan which had a much stronger monarchy and even colonial sins. If there is a feeling against monarchy some of this may be down to the fact that France never returned to republicanism in this timeline so French imperialism is still associated with Bonapartism but America (while more radical and less imperialist in this timeline) is a Republic which still seized vast territory from Mexico and conquered the native populations. Further, history has shown with Rome and Athens that a monarch is not necessary for empire. The native monarchies of regions occupied by the imperial powers are often tainted with accusations of collaborationism, but this is true of their entire social structure generally and some native monarchies serve as symbols and rallying points of imperial resistance (the monarch of Ethiopia serving this role rather prominently).

Ultimately I don't think anyone besides left-wing purists in Germany, Italy, and Spain would care about Montenegro receiving our aid and sponsorship, especially if we promote reform there. They were until very recently a nation under the domination of the Ottoman Empire after all and they have never participated in any domination of another land, at least under their own power. We would also be able to force a democratic constitution which in time may lead to a peaceful end to the Petrovic-Njegos dynasty, maybe after Nikola I's death.
 
Fingon888 said:
France never returned to republicanism in this timeline
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It did. Napoleon III established the Second French Empire by being installed as Emperor after being legally elected President of the Second Republic. The difference is us, actually, there was no Franco-Prussian War that resulted in his abdication, so his son became Emperor in turn after his death.
 
grimely said:
It did. Napoleon III established the Second French Empire by being installed as Emperor after being legally elected President of the Second Republic. The difference is us, actually, there was no Franco-Prussian War that resulted in his abdication, so his son became Emperor in turn after his death.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I meant to the Third Republic, the Second Republic to Empire happened as OTL before/as the game was starting. The Third Republic was the French government that turbocharged French imperialism.
 
I wasn't arguing no one would care or that it would be popular at home, which I think it would be fine if we sold it right but that's beside the point. I was arguing it would not be unpopular abroad.
 
I wouldn't be so sure of that either. There are vigorous republican movements in both Korea and China that are fighting both their monarchist collaborator governments and their colonial occupiers, and the Philippines just had a no-bullshit republican revolution.

It should be remembered that colonialism in this era often didn't operate just through direct military occupation, but through turning weak and pliant local regimes into puppets. Where those local regimes are monarchies they will be just as despised as their colonial occupiers.
 
All that I particularly care about is ensuring that all the coastline is Alliance clay. That's what Italy and Spain wanted out of this war and so we should make that a priority.

Beyond that, we can just grab whatever is convenient.
 
Nevis said:
I am firmly AGAINST having Serbia /Montenegro in our block, we have been told that we cannot force them to become republics and having ANY monarchies in our block severely compromises its mission statement. There is Realpolitik and there is shooting yourself in the foot, and taking those two is definitely shooting ourselves in the foot. I am also against walking away from these negotiations with a positive balance, that would mean pissing away our gains from this war for essentially no reason.

Random's plan is the best I have seen so far.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I second this. Being friendly with Serbia and Montenegro by giving them concessions is one thing, but making them part of the allied block when they're monarchies (and not especially progressive ones at that) is another entirely.

Let's secure as much land to reconstruct and liberate as possible where we'll actually have a free hand.
 
Drieder said:
Im pretty sure colonialism and monarchy are almost synonymous at this point in history. And monarchy has always been a symbol of opression and inequality.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is why the decolonized states of Africa have ceremonial native monarchies, because they're pro-colonialism. Most all colonial states weren't radical republics taken over by the European empires, the people there weren't left-wing by our conceptions IC or OOC. Most colonial rebellions until quite late were reactionary, defending their traditional rights (eg to pasture, to land, to religion), against encroaching Europeans. The current colonized population in anywhere the French and British control is unlikely to be opposed to monarchism at all, and would likely find our ideals insane.

We just still think they don't deserve to be enslaved and oppressed, despite that.
 
DanBaque said:
We just still think they don't deserve to be enslaved and oppressed, despite that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is true! We're very much on a ideological mission with regards to Africa and Asia, and we'll try to help them out even if the postcolonial government is a monarchy.

It certainly doesn't hurt that liberating the colonies weakens the colonizers.
 
It's worth noticing that in historical decolonization, there was in fact very few returns to monarchy. Once colonialism has destroyed those structures, they're usually gone for good. It's different if they're fighting to not be colonized in the first place or merely protectorates though. And of course we're ahead of the decolonization timeline by quite a bit so there's still a lot more of a base for it.

I do think we shouldn't be shy about helping those who are welcoming to our ideological overtures first when we have to make choices even though we oppose all colonization and would ideally help all of them, either.
 
Last edited:
Seconded. It's not like we won't help the king of Benin but I think socialists get first priority. And for the king there might be strings attached
 
Last edited:
Random Member said:
[] Plan: Don't Care About Kings
-[] Transylvania should reside within the Allied sphere.
-[] Banat should reside within the Allied sphere.
-[] Bosnia should reside within the Allied sphere.
-[] Dalmatia should reside within the Allied sphere.
-[] Serbia can go its own way.
-[] Montenegro can go its own way.

-1 Leverage
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Aedan777 said:
[] Just the Territory, no Monarchies
-[] Transylvania should reside within the Allied sphere.
-[] Banat should reside within the Allied sphere.
-[] Bosnia should reside within the Allied sphere.
-[] Dalmatia should reside within the Allied sphere.
-[] Serbia can go its own way.
-[] Montenegro can go its own way.

This leaves us with -1 leverage, but that doesn't mean it'll be rejected, could have a counter offer or acceptance with reduced relations. I support taking the lands rather than trying to influence Serbia and Montenengro because it's explicit that we'll be limited in how we can influence them since they're still monarchies. Better to make our sphere proper republics than try to reform and prop up monarchies.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't know if you've noticed - you don't seem to have mentioned it in thread if you have - but you both have the same plan under different names. You should both probably pick one name or the other...

(I agree with your plan by the way).
 
Is adding Montenegro to our block a tacit admission to our alliance, or merely an opportunity to exert influence on them?

Also, hypothetically, if a monarchy is reforming and there's a large socialist influence in their domestic politics, shouldn't we reach out to them to strengthen that movement?
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top