Victoria Falls: A Post-Collapse American Nation Quest [Down With Victoria!]

[4WheelSword]

thread policy Discussion of politics that does not directly relate to the Quest or to Quest votes are banned from hereon out. This thread policy will be enforced by the Moderation team. Do not ignore it.

 

[QTesseract]

[X] Expand. In the current political climate, you have a better chance than ever to strike while the iron is hot and seek the entry of new member states to the Commonwealth. If you play your cards right, you could grow very powerful, very swiftly...albeit at something of a cost in optics.

 

[Shinr]

[X] Remove Hostile Neighborhood. You have been the focus of low-grade hostility and resentment for too long. And...well, all right, you've not actually been very proactive about doing anything about that. But you are tired of it, and you will never get a chance to be surer than now that you'll have the ultimate opportunity to finally change people's perceptions of you. You can't make a second first impression, but you can kill that bastard first impression while you have the chance.

 

[Random Member]

[X] Export the Revolution. You have safeguarded the Commonwealth from the Victorian reactionaries, now the time has come to spread the ideals of socialism to your neighbors. Workers of the Midwest unite!

 

[KnightDisciple]

[X] Remove Hostile Neighborhood. You have been the focus of low-grade hostility and resentment for too long. And...well, all right, you've not actually been very proactive about doing anything about that. But you are tired of it, and you will never get a chance to be surer than now that you'll have the ultimate opportunity to finally change people's perceptions of you. You can't make a second first impression, but you can kill that bastard first impression while you have the chance.

 

[Shadowhisker]

[X] Briefly indulge in the idea of overthrowing the monarchy of the Shawnee Kingdom and installing Mary as the new princess. Before sighing, reminding yourself to be sensible, and...

[X] Remove Hostile Neighborhood. You have been the focus of low-grade hostility and resentment for too long. And...well, all right, you've not actually been very proactive about doing anything about that. But you are tired of it, and you will never get a chance to be surer than now that you'll have the ultimate opportunity to finally change people's perceptions of you. You can't make a second first impression, but you can kill that bastard first impression while you have the chance.

 

[tapkomet]

Probably best to get on everyone's good side

[X] Remove Hostile Neighborhood. You have been the focus of low-grade hostility and resentment for too long. And...well, all right, you've not actually been very proactive about doing anything about that. But you are tired of it, and you will never get a chance to be surer than now that you'll have the ultimate opportunity to finally change people's perceptions of you. You can't make a second first impression, but you can kill that bastard first impression while you have the chance.

 

[clockworkchaos]

I don't think that trying to immediately extract demands from these little polities is going to give us that much direct short-term benefit. They're not very rich or powerful and we already trade extensively with them. Forcing them to give us what little they have on less favorable terms may even make things worse for us in some ways, because it means they can't afford to buy goods we export.

Yes, but unless we forcibly integrate all the local polities likely to start such wars (in which case they'll fight us and THOSE wars will have costs too), some of that is likely to be inevitable in my opinion.

Plus, if we do start fighting someone like Volk or the Shawnee Kingdom after declaring ourselves to be the muscular Number One without addressing Hostile Neighborhood, all those other polities will be soured against us and suspicious that we're basically just "Victoria, with better PR and more cannons."

Click to shrink...

In general, I favor a doctrine that states Commonwealth opposes and sort of forcible expansion. Even in cases where we were dedicated to the elimination of the current government (Victoria) we do not force integration, instead of giving the option of joining or a new democratically elected government (with possible occupation for a few years for de-nazification). But no territory joins us without consent, even in cases where we utterly destroy the old government. In cases where Vold or Shawnee try aggression, I favor making defensive pacts with those around them, giving us casus belli.

I'd leave that up to @PoptartProdigy . Remember that their "territory" consisted of, essentially, "as much land as a Victorian army division felt like claiming as a private fiefdom and/or resort area." They're not so much a political faction as they are a region. A region where the Victorians of Andrew Division deliberately weeded massacred all leadership and organization above the 'village council' level, expected all the surviving villages to take orders from General Smith's mansion, and started handing off kidnapped children to the villagers to raise.

Their territorial extent is, again, defined by how much land the Victorians could carve out and wanted to... and that's quite a lot of land. Especially since the Andrew Division deliberately wanted to go for a low population density, to enforce rural lifestyles, and to be able to exploit their monopoly on motorized transport in the area. They wanted the little peasant villages to be far apart, and they wanted the villagers (including the kidnapped children) to "stay put" and wait passively for the Andrew Division troops to come back so they could cosplay being country squires.

Click to shrink...

To add my own thoughts, I think Simon is right, the Blue Mountains can actually be rather large, as it isn't subject to the usual size limitations that get you destroyed due to being a client state. Though I see a devastated region that extends around the areas. If a Blue Mountain slave wants to run, they are going to have to do so on foot. Across wild territory. Usually in winter (when the division is back in Victoria). As a teenager at most (the oldest Children are 20). This accounts for why even lacking Victoria's CMC, the portion of runaways is... lower than you might otherwise think.

Though at the end of the day the size of the Blue Mountains doesn't matter because they aren't the productive territory. Without serious AP investment, they will never be so (I admit I'm sorry enough for the poor guys that I kinda want to do that at some point). I will also admit that they were originally imagined as smallish, but they were originally supposed to be a tiny polity in a conference of hundreds, who was there for flavor only and many people didn't even think they were real or know they existed. As one of 28, and a weight of fear upon the entire great lakes, so I think a somewhat larger size makes sense.

 

[Simon_Jester]

In general, I favor a doctrine that states Detroit opposes and sort of forcible expansion. Even in cases where we were dedicated to the elimination of the current government (Victoria) we do not force integration, instead of giving the option of joining or a new democratically elected government (with possible occupation for a few years for de-nazification). But no territory joins us without consent, even in cases where we utterly destroy the old government. In cases where Vold of Shawnee try aggression, I favor making defensive pacts with those around them, giving us casus belli.

Click to shrink...

I mean, sure fine. But realistically, this kind of thing means we are going to have to deal on some level of outside aggression between third party polities, and other problems that we wouldn't face if we focused on intimidating polities into compliance with some set of directives. We can accept that, but we should recognize that it's likely.

(Also did you mean "the Commonwealth opposes" and "Volk or Shawnee?")

 

[picklepikkl]

In general, I favor a doctrine that states Detroit opposes and sort of forcible expansion.

Click to shrink...

I was briefly very confused until I realized you probably meant Chicago.

I agree that we should not conquer. Self-determination can and should be our major principle of expansion. We can be sneaky about it and use self-determination as a way to exert diplomatic pressure on polities (like we did to end the Victorian War), but forcible annexation is something I think we should avoid.

 

[Simon_Jester]

I was briefly very confused until I realized you probably meant Chicago.

I agree that we should not conquer. Self-determination can and should be our major principle of expansion. We can be sneaky about it and use self-determination as a way to exert diplomatic pressure on polities (like we did to end the Victorian War), but forcible annexation is something I think we should avoid.

Click to shrink...

With that said, there may come a point at which this becomes a hard limit to our expansion, and at which point our ability to achieve long term goals is somewhat compromised by it. For example, if we really want to have a trade route down and out the Mississippi (and we really, really do)... We may come to a point where there's a power bloc on the river that just won't consensually budge. What do we do then?

 

[clockworkchaos]

With that said, there may come a point at which this becomes a hard limit to our expansion, and at which point our ability to achieve long term goals is somewhat compromised by it. For example, if we really want to have a trade route down and out the Mississippi (and we really, really do)... We may come to a point where there's a power bloc on the river that just won't consensually budge. What do we do then?

Click to shrink...

I do not believe free navigation, and the right of passage on the Mississippi is the same as a conquest. They have the right to determine their own path, they do not have the right to block river traffic. They do have the right to refuse our ships in their ports or refuse trade and even extract reasonable toll in line with costs for keeping passage open (such as lock maintenance for canals)

 

[Hydroplatypus]

[X] Remove Hostile Neighborhood. You have been the focus of low-grade hostility and resentment for too long. And...well, all right, you've not actually been very proactive about doing anything about that. But you are tired of it, and you will never get a chance to be surer than now that you'll have the ultimate opportunity to finally change people's perceptions of you. You can't make a second first impression, but you can kill that bastard first impression while you have the chance.

 

[picklepikkl]

With that said, there may come a point at which this becomes a hard limit to our expansion, and at which point our ability to achieve long term goals is somewhat compromised by it. For example, if we really want to have a trade route down and out the Mississippi (and we really, really do)... We may come to a point where there's a power bloc on the river that just won't consensually budge. What do we do then?

Click to shrink...

Basically what clockworkchaos said:

I do not believe free navigation, and the right of passage on the Mississippi is the same as a conquest. They have the right to determine their own path, they do not have the right to block river traffic. They do have the right to refuse our ships in their ports or refuse trade and even extract reasonable toll in line with costs for keeping passage open (such as lock maintenance for canals)

Click to shrink...

I am totally fine being the aggressor in wars for the sake of enforcing terms like "you will let our shipping pass through" or "you won't harass travelers" or whatever. I am not fine with annexation.

If our expansion hits a hard limit because the expressed will of the people in all our neighboring states is "we would like to keep doing what we're doing instead of joining you," I consider that feature and not bug. I can live with not stretching from sea to shining sea if the people on either side are happy in the polities they're in.

 

[Simon_Jester]

OK. Just think we've gotta ask the questions.

Another is, what do we do about some self-proclaimed overlord who says:

"No, I will not hold a plebiscite, my people are loyal to me just fine and I'm doing just fine here," when we have good reason to think all is not well and that they're terrorizing people? Sovereignty without democracy is... ideologically tricky for us.

 

[Crimson Alchemis]

OK. Just think we've gotta ask the questions.

Another is, what do we do about some self-proclaimed overlord who says:

"No, I will not hold a plebiscite, my people are loyal to me just fine and I'm doing just fine here," when we have good reason to think all is not well and that they're terrorizing people? Sovereignty without democracy is... ideologically tricky for us.

Click to shrink...

I don't think it would be that inappropriate if we exerted some sort of pressure to have recalcitrant leaders acquiesce

 

[Ugolino]

OK. Just think we've gotta ask the questions.

Another is, what do we do about some self-proclaimed overlord who says:

"No, I will not hold a plebiscite, my people are loyal to me just fine and I'm doing just fine here," when we have good reason to think all is not well and that they're terrorizing people? Sovereignty without democracy is... ideologically tricky for us.

Click to shrink...

I mean, there's a very obvious set of stages to escalate with. Demand that they tolerate outside observers, reporting on if their claims are the case, and free movement of anyone that isn't comfortable living under those circumstances.

If they refuse, consider that a piece of evidence towards a formal casus belli. "They do not allow for the people to select leaders of their choosing, they do not allow outside verification of the wellbeing of the people, they do not allow free movement of the people..."

If outside reporters report coercion, start with diplomatic and public pressure and condemnation of their actions and demand that they change that status.

Overlords may not be targets by default, ideologically, but that's with the understanding that they've been under uniquely difficult circumstances and prolonged social breakdown and may have not had the opportunity to reassess the merits of representing the will of their people. They will be given several chances and incentives to do so.

In other words, they had excuses to not get with the program. That excuse has an expiration date.

Basically what clockworkchaos said:

I am totally fine being the aggressor in wars for the sake of enforcing terms like "you will let our shipping pass through" or "you won't harass travelers" or whatever. I am not fine with annexation.

If our expansion hits a hard limit because the expressed will of the people in all our neighboring states is "we would like to keep doing what we're doing instead of joining you," I consider that feature and not bug. I can live with not stretching from sea to shining sea if the people on either side are happy in the polities they're in.

Click to shrink...

Forced annexation of acceptable variations on self-governance isn't on the table, no- but frankly, we should aim for a)representative government, b)finding states that are okay with or expanding into some sort of union from sea to sea. (I mean, let's be honest, if we get NY and Cali on board, that's that goal technically achieved right there without any further fuss)

As for here and now...

Velvet then glove.

[X] Remove Hostile Neighborhood. You have been the focus of low-grade hostility and resentment for too long. And...well, all right, you've not actually been very proactive about doing anything about that. But you are tired of it, and you will never get a chance to be surer than now that you'll have the ultimate opportunity to finally change people's perceptions of you. You can't make a second first impression, but you can kill that bastard first impression while you have the chance.

 

[BoredStudent1414]

OK. Just think we've gotta ask the questions.

Another is, what do we do about some self-proclaimed overlord who says:

"No, I will not hold a plebiscite, my people are loyal to me just fine and I'm doing just fine here," when we have good reason to think all is not well and that they're terrorizing people? Sovereignty without democracy is... ideologically tricky for us.

Click to shrink...

I don't think it would be that inappropriate if we exerted some sort of pressure to have recalcitrant leaders acquiesce

Click to shrink...

Sovereignty in its original Westphalian sense does not care if a state is democratic or if the people of that state actually support it or not. Other states have no right to impose anything on the internal affairs of a state. A state has the right to deal with their own population as they please.

Will overseas powers really care about what we do to unrecognized warlord cliques or petty states that do not show on a world map? Probably not. It is the neighbors that will worry about our attitude about the sovereignty of the local governments.

 

[clockworkchaos]

OK. Just think we've gotta ask the questions.

Another is, what do we do about some self-proclaimed overlord who says:

"No, I will not hold a plebiscite, my people are loyal to me just fine and I'm doing just fine here," when we have good reason to think all is not well and that they're terrorizing people? Sovereignty without democracy is... ideologically tricky for us.

Click to shrink...

War to create democracy with other causes rarely turns out well. In a world of infinite resources, it could be an interesting philosophocal exercise, as is we have so many other problems. We dont have to support them, and if another state invades invades I only support defending if there are realpolitik reasons, but we cant afford wars like that.

If the state has an active revolt that can make claims to alternate statehood, this changes.

 

[Taut_Templar]

I was under the impression that we're Revivalists. As in, going to restore the United States of America. The clear and stated goal is to reclaim all the land and people of the old nation, restore democracy for everyone, and destroy Victoria. While ideally speaking we're going to coordinate with our fellow democracies and Revivalists in arms, there's still a significant portion of the Continent that'll oppose us, Russian/Victorian proxy or not. I can't possibly imagine why we'd ever just let someone tell us to fuck off when the National Reclamation officially begins, especially if they're a dictatorship or otherwise authoritarian. Pacing ourselves now due to the practical ability to absorb new land and not wanting to provoke an official Russian response is one thing, giving up on the Dream is entirely another.

 

[luhar1997]

[x] Remove Hostile Neighborhood. You have been the focus of low-grade hostility and resentment for too long. And...well, all right, you've not actually been very proactive about doing anything about that. But you are tired of it, and you will never get a chance to be surer than now that you'll have the ultimate opportunity to finally change people's perceptions of you. You can't make a second first impression, but you can kill that bastard first impression while you have the chance

 

[Ugolino]

I was under the impression that we're Revivalists. As in, going to restore the United States of America. The clear and stated goal is to reclaim all the land and people of the old nation, restore democracy for everyone, and destroy Victoria. While ideally speaking we're going to coordinate with our fellow democracies and Revivalists in arms, there's still a significant portion of the Continent that'll oppose us, Russian/Victorian proxy or not. I can't possibly imagine why we'd ever just let someone tell us to fuck off when the National Reclamation officially begins, especially if they're a dictatorship or otherwise authoritarian. Pacing ourselves now due to the practical ability to absorb new land and not wanting to provoke an official Russian response is one thing, giving up on the Dream is entirely another.

Click to shrink...

Dictatorships and other botched states are fair targets but revivalism has to take a backseat to self-determination where the two clash. The goal isn't to be the Enclave, it's to reunify like-minded Revivalists and talk the rest into considering things over time. Legitimate, representative states that opt out are not going to be subject to forcible conquest for that decision and should be left alone in the short term.

 

[Simon_Jester]

I was under the impression that we're Revivalists. As in, going to restore the United States of America. The clear and stated goal is to reclaim all the land and people of the old nation, restore democracy for everyone, and destroy Victoria. While ideally speaking we're going to coordinate with our fellow democracies and Revivalists in arms, there's still a significant portion of the Continent that'll oppose us, Russian/Victorian proxy or not. I can't possibly imagine why we'd ever just let someone tell us to fuck off when the National Reclamation officially begins, especially if they're a dictatorship or otherwise authoritarian. Pacing ourselves now due to the practical ability to absorb new land and not wanting to provoke an official Russian response is one thing, giving up on the Dream is entirely another.

Click to shrink...

Me, I'm willing to settle for a United States with a few holes, distortions, and dents in it. Among other things, because I strongly suspect we'll get some First Nations-dominated polities that want a better deal than they got from the US's gunpoint "treaty negotiations" of 200 years ago, and conversely because there are going to be some formerly Canadian polities that may want to join up because we're fighting Vicks who oppressed them.

Also because I suspect the NCR doesn't actually want to join a revivalist United States, or won't again, and may prefer to remain independent. And I'd like for this not to become a sticking point between us after all the imperialists are pushed off the continent.

 

[PoptartProdigy]

X] Expand. In the current political climate, you have a better chance than ever to strike while the iron is hot and seek the entry of new member states to the Commonwealth. If you play your cards right, you could grow very powerful, very swiftly...albeit at something of a cost in optics.

Click to shrink...

Broken vote.

Sovereignty in its original Westphalian sense does not care if a state is democratic or if the people of that state actually support it or not. Other states have no right to impose anything on the internal affairs of a state. A state has the right to deal with their own population as they please.

Will overseas powers really care about what we do to unrecognized warlord cliques or petty states that do not show on a world map? Probably not. It is the neighbors that will worry about our attitude about the sovereignty of the local governments.

Click to shrink...

I mean, Westphalia was-

>checks

-in 1648, so I think we might take it as read that a thing or two has shifted since, if only slightly.

 

[Ugolino]

Me, I'm willing to settle for a United States with a few holes, distortions, and dents in it. Among other things, because I strongly suspect we'll get some First Nations-dominated polities that want a better deal than they got from the US's gunpoint "treaty negotiations" of 200 years ago, and conversely because there are going to be some formerly Canadian polities that may want to join up because we're fighting Vicks who oppressed them.

Also because I suspect the NCR doesn't actually want to join a revivalist United States, or won't again, and may prefer to remain independent. And I'd like for this not to become a sticking point between us after all the imperialists are pushed off the continent.

Click to shrink...

I'm okay with a more opt-in approach that's more the North American EU (One might even call it a Union~) with healthy use of Old American symbolism where useful and leveraging goodwill to the hilt/playing the long game where that's less practical.

 

[Pittauro]

Me, I'm willing to settle for a United States with a few holes, distortions, and dents in it. Among other things, because I strongly suspect we'll get some First Nations-dominated polities that want a better deal than they got from the US's gunpoint "treaty negotiations" of 200 years ago, and conversely because there are going to be some formerly Canadian polities that may want to join up because we're fighting Vicks who oppressed them.

Also because I suspect the NCR doesn't actually want to join a revivalist United States, or won't again, and may prefer to remain independent. And I'd like for this not to become a sticking point between us after all the imperialists are pushed off the continent.

Click to shrink...

we could always go for something similar to the European Union with all those polities that do not wish to join us, like (possibly) the NCR or Miami.