|
|
|
#41
August 9th, 2006, 04:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#42
August 9th, 2006, 04:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Well, I am now happy with the borders of Persia. Afghanistan doesn't exist anymore really. It will be become, in due course, Pashtunistan. I have a vague vision as where this is all going and I am hopeful that Pashtunistan will be, one day, part of the Federation of Shanthi. As to the future of Bulgaria, I am increasingly coming to think about a large Eastern European confederation ruled from Vienna - but don't quote me on that.There won't be a crisis, as far as I know, to rally the Belgians together. I was just pointing out that the First World War shut down Flemish/Wallonian differences for a while and put the Wallonians back into dominance. This won't happen, of course, in OTL. I want to avoid a conflict over the issue, so I am thinking about getting the Strausborg Commission to arbitrate. There are, to my count, eight different way in which it could go. They are: Option One: Flanders independent; Wallonia independent Option Two: Flanders independent; Wallonia independent; Luxembourg retakes the province of Luxemburg Option Three: Flanders independent; Wallonia part of France Option Four: Flanders independent; Wallonia part of France; Luxembourg retakes the province of Luxemburg. Option Five: Flanders independent; Wallonia independent; Brussels independent city-state. Option Six: Flanders independent; Wallonia part of France; Brussels independent city-state. Option Seven: Flanders part of Netherlands; Wallonia part of France Option Eight: Flanders part of Netherlands; Wallonia part of France; Brussels independent city-state. When I mention Flanders above, but not Brussels, that option means that Brussels goes with Flanders. I think Option Three and Option Six are the most likely, but I also like Option Four. Let me know what you think.
|
|
#43
August 9th, 2006, 04:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
BTW
I may not get time to post tomorrow, though I am going to try.
With the Democrats not entirely happy about the President driving the country into recession, we will get our first look at a potential challenger for the Democratic nomination. I am also trying to think about the rules to govern the new currency. I had a look at Lincoln's greenbacks, but thought that they were too unpredictable for a sustainable timeline and unlikely without the US being a global reserve currency. Any ideas?
|
|
#44
August 9th, 2006, 08:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What about a Franco - German partition of Belgium? Wallonia to France, Flanders an member Kindom/Grand Duchy with the same level of autonomy as Bavaria et al.
Reason for plausibility: France probably wants Wallonia pretty bad (Francophone after all). Partition with Germany makes perfect sense to them, since relations with Germany are very good and should stay that way. While relations with each other are good the risk for them are pretty small. & most of all: Who cares what the people who are actually living in Belgium want, when two Great Powers made up their minds and no other Great Power is interested in intervening (Well Britain might be interested per se, but wont fight a war against France and Germany together to save Belgium)?
|
|
#45
August 10th, 2006, 01:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#46
August 10th, 2006, 10:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As to Geyl's arguments regarding Flanders, they make some sense. It probably won't be until the next chapter that we deal with the Belgian question - or this chapter, if I drag it out for longer than the regular four-year periods. I will give it some thought before then. Thanks for the information. 
|
|
#47
August 10th, 2006, 10:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 , but I actually would like to make it so. I agree that France will want Wallonia and I also think that eventually it is going to have to do something to move the Bavarians (Aragon and the Cisalpine Kingdom) back into the French sphere of influence. I would also bet that Wallonia would like to be part of France. I don't think that is going to be an enormous question in the long-term. My main focus is what to do with Flanders and, if anything, Brussels and Luxembourg.
|
|
#48
August 10th, 2006, 10:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#49
August 10th, 2006, 11:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
About Flanders joining the Netherlands, at that time there where a lot of Flemish people (I don't know if it was a majority) who wanted to join the Netherlands, because they where treated by the Walloon upper classes as second rate citizens. I can see Flanders wanting to become part of the Netherlands as well as becoming independend, but I doubt they would want to be part of germany, because of the same reason that I can't see the Wallons wanting to join France. If Flanders becomes part of the Netherlands it will be 1/3 of the Netherlands and therefore become a Influential part of the Netherlands. If Flanders becomes part of germany or Wallonia part of France they will only be a very small part of a large country and they will have hardly any influence at all.
An other interresting question would be if The Netherlands want Flanders to join them. As said before at this point was the Netherlands columnised. There where four different political columns: the Catholics, the protestants, the socialist and the liberal column. the addition of Flanders would disturb the current balance of power. A lot of Catholics would suddenly be able to vote, So the catholics probably wouldn't mind Flanders joining and probably even encourage them. There where probably also socialist and liberals in Belgium, so those columns probably wouldn't mind either, but the protestant column would lose a lot of influence in Dutch politics. I don't think they would like it if Flanders joins. Also if Flanders becomes Independ i think they would slowly enter the Dutch Sphere of influence (and The Netherlands would enter the Flemish Sphere of influence), this would probably lead to a lot of cooperations at various areas (like culture, trading etc) and perhaps lead slowly to a reunification in a couple of decades. The same is probably true for Walonia and France although France will have major influence on Wallonia and hardly any the other wat around Last edited by pompejus; August 10th, 2006 at 11:54 AM..
|
|
#50
August 10th, 2006, 11:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Don't forget that you can still have an independent Flanders which might later choose via plebiscite to join the Netherlands, rather than outright annexation. Annexing Wallonia will by the way change France's political makeup (Wallonia is traditionally quite socialist- and after living there for a year, I can confirm that it's still the case!). I would imagine that if Wallonia is annexed, it won't be split into departments, but rather kept as the old provinces: Namur, Hainaut, Liege, Brabant Wallon, Luxembourg. If it's independent at any point, the city of Namur is the likely capital. As for Luxembourg- I don't think it would get all the province. Maybe the southern half and Arlon, certainly no further north than Marche-en-Famenne. The very far south has some Letzeburgish speakers, so there's justification for annexation there.
|
|
#51
August 10th, 2006, 11:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#52
August 10th, 2006, 12:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 .)Anyway, great to have your comments.
|
|
#53
August 10th, 2006, 12:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I envy that you have lived there. I have only ever lived in Australia, except for brief six-month sojourns in the US, Philippines and India. Only ever got to Europe once and that was for a guided tour (I spent more time intoxicated than not, but those are the pitfalls of being a teenage tourist, I guess). I did some map fiddling on the basis of your ideas and came up with something I really like. I have also decided, on the basis of this debate, that I am going to push through until 1920 with this particular chapter - mainly so that I can resolve the Belgian issue and get Europe (the points with which I am unhappy) sorted out. Thanks.
|
|
#54
August 10th, 2006, 01:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A New National Wage
The National Labor Court was due to meet in late January, 1914, to decide on the national minimum wage for the coming year. Companies, already struggling under the new environmental levies and labor regulations, began to vent their hatred at Justice Samuel Gompers and his bench. They stated that there should be no wage rises until the corporations had a chance to stomach the government's changes. The unions were not so impressed. They were demanding that the $3.95 should be raised to $5.00, far above the rate of inflation. President Clark labelled the union campaign as "irresponsible in the extreme". The national accounts were already demonstrating the downturn that many had predicted. However, there were elements in his own party who disagreed with him.
In the city of Detroit, Michigan, resided one of the giants of American industry, whose massive publicity machine and national network of supporters. This same man was also looking for a way to drive his business partners, the Dodge brothers, out of his company. Henry Ford saw an opportunity to outflank the President and the naysayers in one hit, as well as build expertise, raise productivity and cut training costs. He immediately announced that the $5 a day claim was "doable" and introduced it. As per the ruling of previous wage cases, he offered his employees the opportunity to receive up to 15% of all wages in non-voting company stock. This stock would be held in a corporate account and would be cashed in at the end of an individual's employment with Ford Motor Company. This reduced both his immediate wage bill and allowed him to garner publicity for a wage that he wasn't actually paying. In addition, it would reduce the share of the business held by his partners and undercut their profits. Ford was exceptionally pleased with his efforts. It wasn't only the country that noticed these efforts. In Democratic Party headquarters, where loyalties were meaningless and the President was, at least temporarily, out of favour, some began to look towards Michigan for a future Presidential candidate. With an ego the size of Ford, not to mention his vast resources, he was a consideration that could not be ignored.
|
|
#55
August 10th, 2006, 01:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'm fascinated to see what your partition of Belgium will look like- after all, there are enough debates in OTL about what'll happen to it!
|
|
#56
August 11th, 2006, 06:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Russian Suspicion
Tsar Michael II embarked from the coach in front of the doors and looked up. "DEM DEUTSCHEN VOLKE" read the dedication acrosss the architrave and he was looking forward to getting his first view of the much acclaimed steel and glass cupola. Those on his political right had been advising him that it was time to reach a compromise with Germany; those on his left often thought that the whole system of monarchy was the flaw and that once removed, Germany and Russia would naturally draw together.
What he earnestly had attempted to explain was that one hundred ten rude and ignorant peasants could not really exercise sufficient nous to run a democracy. At some point, certainly. In fifty or sixty years from now, certainly. However, Russia was not yet ready for the system they wished to impose. He had even read the work of their prophet, Karl Marx. Certainly, many of the criticisms by Marx were well justified. However, even he predicted that capitalism must precede communism. But the Tsar disagreed most strongly that a physical revolution was required. As the Islamic cleric from Tehran had said to him and as he said to Trotsky, "the true revolution is the revolution of the mind". No nation could afford to romanticise the power of the gun. Enough people had died in Russia. From here on forward, minimal casulties were the way. He had accepted that war was sometimes necessary, but he believed it should be avoided. And so, the Tsar had come to Germany, today to look at the Reichstag and to meet with Chancellor Ebert. He knew that Trotsky had raised the issue of Austria funding Pilsudski's "sporting clubs" without result. He had not liberated his lands in the west simply to have them destroyed. And so he had taken the Government's advice. Russian finances had assisted in the implementation of law and order in Poland-Lithuania. Russian finances had located the criminal propaganda being circulated by groups full of hatred in Poland-Lithuania. Germany understood the situation. There was no other clear reason for the sudden rise in the size of her armed forces in June last year. Pilsudski was dangerous and he needed to be stopped. The Tsar had also pointed this out yesterday to his brother-in-law, the Kaiser. )Ongoing Austrian interference in the affairs of Poland-Lithuania was moronic. The Okhranha had incontrovertible evidence of Austrian involvement in Pilsudski's bid for power. Did Vienna honestly think that they could control Pilsudski? Didn't they understand the outcry that was being raised in the north of his country about their actions? The Chancellor had nodded sagely when he had heard the news. Those who were not socialist, like Russia and Germany, did not understand. It was quite clear to Berlin that any conflict between Russia and Austria over the question of Poland would be one that Austria had provoked, but Ebert suspected that it might have been a blind spot on the Austrian radar and pledged that he would point it out on his next meeting with von Sturgkh. He also suggested that he would have the Kaiser raise the matter with the British Emperor when the former visited the latter in June.
|
|
#57
August 12th, 2006, 01:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where the President is Popular
President James Clark arrived by train at the station, with flags, banners and cheering crowds awaiting his arrival. Since his election, he had never seen this type of general acclamation. People reached out to touch him as he walked through the crowds and one small women broke through the military guard and embraced him. It was little wonder - he had promised to bring freedom to these people.
Since his arrival in Central America, and today in San Salvador, he had spoken to crowds across the region about living a life free of American control and the pre-requisites for doing so. He spoke of the need for trial by jury, representative government, a free press and other symbols of liberty and democracy. He had pointed out that the new Roosevelt Canal would bring a massive economic boost to the region, while American policies had led to vast improvements in education, transport, communications and general quality of life. The most important element of his address had been his comparisons between US and Central American history. In the 1770's, the thirteen colonies had a similar population and standard of living. However, President Clark stressed that what the United States had achieved through war, the Central Americans could achieve through peace and negotiation. America was prepared to hand over her colonies, if only the Central American aristocracy would ensure the prosperity and success of their peoples. Clark called for the immediate establishment of a Federal Council, consisting of El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama and Guatemala. Those countries under US control would be entitled to elect their own representatives, uncensored by US authorities. The Federal Council, consisting of 150 members, would have the following breakdown: Guatemala: 50 members El Salvador: 34 members Honduras: 22 members Nicaragua: 19 members Costa Rica: 13 members Panama: 12 members; and would be empowered to pass binding resolutions relating to defence and foreign affairs by a majority of two-thirds on all countries of the region. If it worked, then the United States would sponsor a national constitutional convention in 1916, and relinquish all its holdings to a newly comprised federal state shortly thereafter. The provisional capital would be San Salvador. And, Clark pointed out, only a federated Central America would be sufficiently strong to stand against any further "imperialism" by the United States in the future. Guatemala was initially incredibly reluctant. President Cabrera would not agree to allow his citizens to participate in the Federal Council until the events of March, 1915. In that month, a keen astronomer, Percival Lowell, located the ninth planet of the solar system and an international competition began to find a name. There were three popular choices. However, the name likely to be runner-up, Minerva, was boosted by Cabrera's indication that he would be willing to change his mind about the Federal Council if that name was chosen for the ninth planet. Thus the planet out from Neptune became Minerva rather than Kronos or Pluto, the other leading contenders, and Central America held its first functional federal conference. With Guatemala's assent to the Federal Council, Cabrera became the leading force in the Constitutional Conference of 1915, examining multiple constitutions and eventually deciding that the United States and Switzerland were two models that deserved attention. The 1916 conference voted to adopt the nomenclature of the United States Congress, but to have a nominal President with power vested in the Congress. However, the debate over the division of powers between the House of Representatives and the Senate. However, despite the impetus of Cabrera, the idea broke down late in 1916 and it would be a decade before the birth of the Federation of Central America. As to President Clark, he would stay in Nicaragua for the next month, having arranged meetings with the leaders of Argentina, Brazil and Chile, who had agreed to travel north to discuss foreign policy between their nations and the developing behemoth to the north.
|
|
#58
August 12th, 2006, 06:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ahh....a happy ending for Central America.....excellent......keep it up.....
|
|
#59
August 12th, 2006, 08:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Spoils of War
The consent of the Californian legislature had been somewhat difficult to obtain, but eventually it had been achieved on the back of a plan to keep out Asian immigrants. It was thus on 25 April, 1914, that President James Clark asked for the admission of four new states into the Union. The Californian legislature had undertaken two acts: firstly, it had ceded part of its south to become the new state of California and secondly, it had changed the name of its own state to Jefferson.
The new state of California had a border that ran, from east to west, along the 35th parallel latitude through the Mohave Desert to the border of what was once Kern County, then ran a dog-leg up to the northern border of Kern and back down to Point Conception. It included all of what had once been Mexico's province of Baja California. San Diego was the new state capital. California was voted into being on the day that the proposal reached Congress. The second was the island of Cuba. Under sixteen years of US rule, it was now approaching a population of 2.6 million and an economy of $12.5 billion. It was growing and at an exceptionally fast rate. Its size would guarantee it a place among the largest of the Union states and the same number of electoral college votes as Georgia. It was the intent of Clark that he would win both these states in any coming election. Cuba became the 50th state of the Union on 29 April, with an overwhelming approval of the Democratic Party. A third consideration was Hispaniola. Though Haiti had sufficient population and Santo Domingo sufficient economic strength, it was believed that neither had the capacity to emerge into statehood themselves. While together they had a larger population than either of the other two states mentioned above, they were economically underdeveloped and it was generally agreed by Congress that it should be regarded as a "territory", but should not be admitted as a state. Thus it was delayed for further consideration until 1921. The remaining tender was Puerto Rico. While half the size of Cuba, it had benefited from American rule and had grown into a strong economy as well. There was considerable debate, but the Congress eventually agreed to call the matter to a vote and it passed narrowly in both Houses. The Congress made Puerto Rico the 51st state of the Union on 19 May, 1914. Once the vote had been completed, Clark travelled to the south-west to implement his plan to wind back Asian migration. There were already large numbers of Mexican nationals living inside this area of the United States. The Government in Washington was prepared to finance the licensing and administrative structure that allowed Mexicans to live and work in the states of California, New Mexico and Arizona without undertaking formal immigration. Instead, they would function as "guest workers", just as the Asians had before them, provided they could show documentation that they were Mexican nationals and formally signed away any rights guaranteed to US workers. If an American and a Mexican applied for the same job, the American would receive priority.
|
|
#60
August 12th, 2006, 08:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Did you like the new name for Pluto?
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
