StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Stas Bush wrote:Well, except the communists that Beowulf rounds up and shoots.

That's still a 'Pro' you know...

So it's probably close enough to March now to swear in the new POTUS. Yay!

RogueIce wrote:That's still a 'Pro' you know...

All the more reason to deal a decisive blow to Manchuria now, before it colludes with the likes of you

Stas Bush wrote:

RogueIce wrote:That's still a 'Pro' you know...

All the more reason to deal a decisive blow to Manchuria now, before it colludes with the likes of you

Well that's between you and Beowulf. All that it'll do for me is just confirm the USSR (and by extension communists everywhere) as aggressive expasionists out to dominate the world. Or something equally inflammatory.

You probably had a Red Scare 10x already because Brazil went red in the early 1900s. Nothing I do or do not will change that.

Stas Bush wrote:You probably had a Red Scare 10x already because Brazil went red in the early 1900s. Nothing I do or do not will change that.

Probably. But AFAIK Brazil has been quiet as of late. I suppose, if nothing else, this will help keep the spark alive.

RogueIce wrote:

Stas Bush wrote:You probably had a Red Scare 10x already because Brazil went red in the early 1900s. Nothing I do or do not will change that.

Probably. But AFAIK Brazil has been quiet as of late. I suppose, if nothing else, this will help keep the spark alive.

There is that communist conference last I checked...

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:There is that communist conference last I checked...

Oh yeah. I forgot about that. I'm not sure that'd be as dramatic as "COMMUNISTS INVADE MANCHURIA!!!!" though.

EDIT: Or rather, "COMMUNISTS INVADE NEIGHBORING COUNTRY!!!!" I doubt many mid-1920s Americans know (or care) about Manchuria.

Why wouldn't they? Even without a Pacific port America would probably be doing a lot of business in China, and Manchuria is next door.

Steve wrote:Why wouldn't they? Even without a Pacific port America would probably be doing a lot of business in China, and Manchuria is next door.

The government would know, sure. Hence how we could generate "ZOMG Red Menace!" stuff. But the average American 'on the street'?

Is it safe to assume that Panaman Canal Board members all have embassies in my country?

Just for the sake of making it easier to organize budget meetings and other stuff like that.

Ryan Thunder wrote:Is it safe to assume that Panaman Canal Board members all have embassies in my country?

Just for the sake of making it easier to organize budget meetings and other stuff like that.

I would imagine yes.

I'm referring the defensive pact Chilitina is purposing to committee because I'm horrible at writing such things. basically I'm hoping we can work out the details here.

My opening proposal for it is that it will be a pretty straightforward military defensive treaty stipulating that signatory nations are obligated to provide military forces to any other signatory nation attacked by communists.

if this is too much for people I'm willing to support watered down language saying signatories should provide "reasonable aid" to one another or the like. Basically if someone wants to wiggle out of it then they could do so a lot easier.

Probably depends on what individual countries are doing.

I've been meaning to have the Cascadian delegate sent by President Halling cause some grief myself. Toward my PC that is.

And Ryan, yes, I'd have an embassy in Gran Colombia.

Realized I mixed up the Prime Ministers there in my post at the Conference, meant to be the Malagasy PM. Was a bit of a rush job at lunch hour, heh.

Um... I doubt the USSR deported any "millions" of men in the 1920s. Especially by 1925. So I guess Beowulf chose to publicly insult me. Wrong idea.

Raj Ahten wrote:I'm referring the defensive pact Chilitina is purposing to committee because I'm horrible at writing such things. basically I'm hoping we can work out the details here.

My opening proposal for it is that it will be a pretty straightforward military defensive treaty stipulating that signatory nations are obligated to provide military forces to any other signatory nation attacked by communists.

if this is too much for people I'm willing to support watered down language saying signatories should provide "reasonable aid" to one another or the like. Basically if someone wants to wiggle out of it then they could do so a lot easier.

Given the intense nationalism of the era (even without a WWI to dampen the liberal ethic of the Enlightenment) its unlikely you could get such a massive mutual defense treaty in to play. A "reasonable aid" against "known agitators" would be possible though you would likely lose some members (anybody with strong Communist parties knocking on the doors of government). Mexico would be willing to sign off on that much but no more.

Stas Bush wrote:Um... I doubt the USSR deported any "millions" of men in the 1920s. Especially by 1925. So I guess Beowulf chose to publicly insult me. Wrong idea.

Stas Bush wrote:

Beowulf wrote:Back then, the only way to get more people there is to forcibly deport them.

Actually, I could do that. What did I have in this reality, Basmachi riots? Allright. Time to export several million people out there.

Is it wrong to assume you did exactly this?

CmdrWilkens wrote:

Raj Ahten wrote:I'm referring the defensive pact Chilitina is purposing to committee because I'm horrible at writing such things. basically I'm hoping we can work out the details here.

My opening proposal for it is that it will be a pretty straightforward military defensive treaty stipulating that signatory nations are obligated to provide military forces to any other signatory nation attacked by communists.

if this is too much for people I'm willing to support watered down language saying signatories should provide "reasonable aid" to one another or the like. Basically if someone wants to wiggle out of it then they could do so a lot easier.

Given the intense nationalism of the era (even without a WWI to dampen the liberal ethic of the Enlightenment) its unlikely you could get such a massive mutual defense treaty in to play. A "reasonable aid" against "known agitators" would be possible though you would likely lose some members (anybody with strong Communist parties knocking on the doors of government). Mexico would be willing to sign off on that much but no more.

I figured I wouldn't be able to get much more than that, which is fine. It gives me a short list of possible allies.

Beowulf wrote:Is it wrong to assume you did exactly this?

How could I do it in the what, less than 4 months of game time?

As soon as your "reply" on that "conference" gets to the NKID (I'm not sure how long that takes), you'll see our response. And it won't be a permafrost railway.

Raj, Kelvin's rant could possibly come after whatever reply Akhlut gives for Ungern-Sternburg.

Stas Bush wrote:

Beowulf wrote:Is it wrong to assume you did exactly this?

How could I do it in the what, less than 4 months of game time?

I had assumed you had done this when you first crushed the Basmachi revolt, most likely several years before game start. Otherwise, you don't have the population in the Far East to support your damned huge Special Far East Army with basic supplies. And it all has to get shipped in by the Trans-Siberian Railway. If my assumption is wrong, however, let me retcon that part out.

To be fair, your presence alone there is enough a threat to support there a high population artificially. But then, don't retcon it out. Frankly, I still need those ports, so thank you for making an excuse for war easier for me.

Stas Bush wrote:To be fair, your presence alone there is enough a threat to support there a high population artificially. But then, don't retcon it out. Frankly, I still need those ports, so thank you for making an excuse for war easier for me.

So you are accepting having deported Basmachis forcefully to the area?

RogueIce wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:There is that communist conference last I checked...

Oh yeah. I forgot about that. I'm not sure that'd be as dramatic as "COMMUNISTS INVADE MANCHURIA!!!!" though.

EDIT: Or rather, "COMMUNISTS INVADE NEIGHBORING COUNTRY!!!!" I doubt many mid-1920s Americans know (or care) about Manchuria.

How about 1918-1919 when you had "COMMUNISTS INVADE THE CONGO!" After all Brazil *did* send a large battleship fleet there, did fight a naval battle, did send in divisions (single digit mind but still) of Revolutionary Guard and Marines to support the Congolese Revolution. Now certainly those divisions couldn't have gotten ashore if the Revolution didn't already control a large harbour, but among panicmongers who will keep track of suck minor details?

Incidentally the Congolese Revolution also created the first bout of wild rumours about the MSE as well as rumours about how the Revolutionary Guardsmen are fanatics, completely unafraid of death, who continue attacking despite being seriously injured! You know, the usual stuff

Steve wrote:So you are accepting having deported Basmachis forcefully to the area?

The USSR never deported the Basmachi in real life prior to 1950, and frankly, the number of deported Basmachi was around 3 thousand - a clearly insufficient number. However, the Russo-Manchurian war clearly should've given a major impetus to create a militarized stronghold. Tsarist Russia also indulged in major deportations (like deporting 360,000 Jews, or several thousand Tartars), so I find no issue with the total population of the Far Eastern Military District having increased population due to both Tsarist deportations in 1905-1916 and Soviet Basmachi deportation around 1922-1924.

Then again, like I said, the mere existence of Manchuria as the enemy validates a higher population. There were 10 million men in IRL Siberia of the 1914 Russian Empire; by 1925, without a civil war, there could well be 15-20 million men, especially considering Manchuria's hostile stance. And that is fine enough to support the Special Far Eastern Army.