In His Own Right, Part III
- Thread starter LacheyS
- Start date
Ummmm, since I have a very limited knowledge about Christianity(meaning almost none), and I myself are not a christian, could you explain what the impact of the change in Vatcan?
Wow, India a dominion by 1914! Wow
All the changes have not happened yet. The Vatican in the early part of the 20th century was fighting between two schools. One thought that the Bible could stand up to intellectual and scientific scrutiny and, where it did not, this meant that the interpretation of the Bible (not the Bible itself) was wrong. The other faction believed that the Church's interpretation of the Bible took precedence. Pope Leo XIII was of the first school and encouraged modernist thought. Pope Pius X was of the latter school and tried to tear modernist thinking from the Church. Pope Gregory XVII is one of Leo's crowd.
Pope Gregory will believe that the Virgin Mary wants him to unify the Orthodox and Catholic churches (he has a vision). So he will look to displace the differences between them. The Orthodox have a problem with the Pope declaring that, when he speaks from the throne ("ex cathedra"), he is infallible. That is part of papal law and cannot be changed, but it can be explained by further revelation. Thus Gregory will state that while the Pope is still infallible, God does not bless him speaking "ex cathedra" unless he has first acted "in consilium" - that is, sought the consent of all the Orthodox bishops. This links in to the "primus inter pares" idea - that the Pope is equal to all other bishops; however, he is the nominal leader of the Church.
Another argument is over the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the celebration of the Eucharist (called Holy Communion by Protestants). In the Bible, leaven (yeast) is quite often used as a metaphor for sin. Thus, the Western Church did away with using leaven in the Host, but the Eastern Church did not. It might sound like a ridiculous thing to fight over (and I tend to agree it is), but, if His Holiness can convince the Orthodox bishops that he saw a vision of the Holy Virgin, then they would probably be prepared to change.
The Chalcedonian schism came from an argument between East and West over the role that each of the members of the Trinity had. To my mind, it is pathetic semantics, but nonetheless, in the 1100's, it was considered an issue worth splitting the Church over. I believe it probably had more to do with the relationships between the Byzantine Empire and the Franks, but that's beside the point. The East believed, like the West, that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one and equal. However, in the wording of the creed, it says,
"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son....."
Some felt that this gave the Son priority over the Holy Spirit. The compromise that Pope Gregory XVII will use to heal this rift will be to change the words of the Creed so that it states,
"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and through the Son",
thus ensuring that the Holy Spirit cannot be perceived as a second class member of the Trinity. As I said, crazy semantics, like most of the divisions in Christianity. The reason why I know a fair bit about this is that, when I was younger, I was a seminarian, but I realised that I wasn't suited (at that time anyway) to Holy Orders. I could not, in good conscience, endorse Church doctrine on a few issues.
What I am seeing is whether or not I can unite all churches which call themselves Catholic: the Latin or Roman Church, the Eastern Rite Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican and Lutheran Churches. So that like the Nicean Creed, they can truly declare that there is "one holy catholic and apostolic church".
Good stuff - early Pope John Paul II's attempts to unify the Churches....
I came across Shoes of a Fisherman that goes into detail about the RCC's bickering... of course it's rather preachy........
I certainly did appreciate some of the world of PJP II. Never read the book, though, of course, I am familiar with its contents. I often wonder if familiarity with the character of Kiril led the College to elect Karol Cardinal Wojtyla.
Do you mean "appropiate the words"?
On the theory of "The Shoes of a Fisherman" it can be argued that Poland was a part of Russia for some time and thus PJP2 was "Russian" in that line of reasoning...
There was a movie of it with Anthony Quinn as Russian....
When's the map going to appear?
On the theory of "The Shoes of a Fisherman" it can be argued that Poland was a part of Russia for some time and thus PJP2 was "Russian" in that line of reasoning...
There was a movie of it with Anthony Quinn as Russian....
When's the map going to appear?
The Assault of Clark
The sluggish economy was weighing down on President Clark and, more importantly, on his numbers. His most recent effort, the Anti-Trust Act, had been called a "charter of freedom" by Justice Samuel Gompers of the Federal Labor Court. The epithets attached by the Constitutional Party and a good percentage of the Republicans were not as flattering.
The growing numbers of the Socialist Party and the Republican Party were putting a squeeze on the Democrats from both directions. With an election due in the next few months for Congress, Clark desperately wanted to take ground from the relative newcomer and struck out with an embrace of labor. Trade unions would be exempted from trust laws, while strikes, picketing and boycotts were all legalised formally. In an attack on business, having the same director on two different company boards now implied an attempt to violate anti-trust provisions and the Federal Government could review prices of products and force companies to establish new prices where the Government believed that the prices were conducive to the establishment of a monopoly.
It was on these policies that the American people reflected when they went to elect a new Congress in 1914. Their view of the policies, and the continued economic stagnancy, quickly became clear. The result was a landslide. Republicans took fifty-five seats in the House of Representatives, with an eight percent swing nationally against the Democrats. They also took control of the Senate for the first time in four years, winning 58 out of 104 seats. In the House, the new balance was Republican 182, Democrat 135, Socialist 66, Constitution 52.
Clark's personal standing was not the only thing that took a battering. In thirteen of the fifty-two states, the Constitution Party found they had insufficient members to get on the ballot paper. The party leader, William Howard Taft, would announce the dissolution of the party on 17 June, 1915, and would encourage his members to join the Republicans, giving them a 33-seat majority in the House as well. Senior Democrats, like Senator Woodrow Wilson, were also dumped in the landslide, placing a serious dent in his hope of running for the Presidency in 1916 (Wilson would die in 1919 during the Red Scare).
However, the most important outcome of the 1914 Congressional elections was the return of Senator Albert Beveridge. Beveridge almost immediately began his campaign for the presidency in 1916, giving a key speech in California. He stated that the Socialist Party was the cause of the problems in America, internally sabotaging the country and attempting to sell it out to Russian and German philosophies. He stated that Eugene Debs and his Socialist Party were the "sons of foreigners" who had no true loyalty to America and were encouraging racial tension in the nation. The reason for this were clear, he believed. Research done by the Carnegie Institute in New York showed that interbreeding between black and white populations had weakened the country. Both races should stand proud and strong, but separate, in order to oppose this attempt to take over the country by foreign interests. He appealed to the need for a greater military and national security infrastructure to defend the country against "uncivilised" and "irrational" philosophies while promoting a "Greater America".
Referring to the recent addition of Spanish speaking states, he warned that English must be the only acceptable language and that America should not tolerate any "parasitic behaviour" by the new states. He attacked other "parasites", such as the larger corporations, stating that they should be "forced to work" in service to the nation through high asset taxes, seizure of assets where necessary, the funding of large scale national infrastructure and a large social welfare net for "deserving Americans". Lastly, he warned that his plan for the nation would not be without hiccups. He called for powers to more easily reform the Constitution and remove judges who stood in the way of progress.
The sluggish economy was weighing down on President Clark and, more importantly, on his numbers. His most recent effort, the Anti-Trust Act, had been called a "charter of freedom" by Justice Samuel Gompers of the Federal Labor Court. The epithets attached by the Constitutional Party and a good percentage of the Republicans were not as flattering.
The growing numbers of the Socialist Party and the Republican Party were putting a squeeze on the Democrats from both directions. With an election due in the next few months for Congress, Clark desperately wanted to take ground from the relative newcomer and struck out with an embrace of labor. Trade unions would be exempted from trust laws, while strikes, picketing and boycotts were all legalised formally. In an attack on business, having the same director on two different company boards now implied an attempt to violate anti-trust provisions and the Federal Government could review prices of products and force companies to establish new prices where the Government believed that the prices were conducive to the establishment of a monopoly.
It was on these policies that the American people reflected when they went to elect a new Congress in 1914. Their view of the policies, and the continued economic stagnancy, quickly became clear. The result was a landslide. Republicans took fifty-five seats in the House of Representatives, with an eight percent swing nationally against the Democrats. They also took control of the Senate for the first time in four years, winning 58 out of 104 seats. In the House, the new balance was Republican 182, Democrat 135, Socialist 66, Constitution 52.
Clark's personal standing was not the only thing that took a battering. In thirteen of the fifty-two states, the Constitution Party found they had insufficient members to get on the ballot paper. The party leader, William Howard Taft, would announce the dissolution of the party on 17 June, 1915, and would encourage his members to join the Republicans, giving them a 33-seat majority in the House as well. Senior Democrats, like Senator Woodrow Wilson, were also dumped in the landslide, placing a serious dent in his hope of running for the Presidency in 1916 (Wilson would die in 1919 during the Red Scare).
However, the most important outcome of the 1914 Congressional elections was the return of Senator Albert Beveridge. Beveridge almost immediately began his campaign for the presidency in 1916, giving a key speech in California. He stated that the Socialist Party was the cause of the problems in America, internally sabotaging the country and attempting to sell it out to Russian and German philosophies. He stated that Eugene Debs and his Socialist Party were the "sons of foreigners" who had no true loyalty to America and were encouraging racial tension in the nation. The reason for this were clear, he believed. Research done by the Carnegie Institute in New York showed that interbreeding between black and white populations had weakened the country. Both races should stand proud and strong, but separate, in order to oppose this attempt to take over the country by foreign interests. He appealed to the need for a greater military and national security infrastructure to defend the country against "uncivilised" and "irrational" philosophies while promoting a "Greater America".
Referring to the recent addition of Spanish speaking states, he warned that English must be the only acceptable language and that America should not tolerate any "parasitic behaviour" by the new states. He attacked other "parasites", such as the larger corporations, stating that they should be "forced to work" in service to the nation through high asset taxes, seizure of assets where necessary, the funding of large scale national infrastructure and a large social welfare net for "deserving Americans". Lastly, he warned that his plan for the nation would not be without hiccups. He called for powers to more easily reform the Constitution and remove judges who stood in the way of progress.
Do you mean "appropiate the words"?
On the theory of "The Shoes of a Fisherman" it can be argued that Poland was a part of Russia for some time and thus PJP2 was "Russian" in that line of reasoning...
There was a movie of it with Anthony Quinn as Russian....
When's the map going to appear?
Yes.
True.
Stupid, eh?
Maps, maps! It's always maps with you people. AAARGH!
I will see what I can do.Status of Maps
I will give you a map in February, 1916, when there is a settlement between Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary over Poland. Do you want a world map as well? If so, does anyone know where I can pick up a good world map with current borders (I don't have time for too much work)?
I will give you a map in February, 1916, when there is a settlement between Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary over Poland. Do you want a world map as well? If so, does anyone know where I can pick up a good world map with current borders (I don't have time for too much work)?
The Return of Cyprus
The British Ambassador, Sir Louis Mallet, sat down across from the new Grand Vizier, Ahmed Tevfik Pasha, in the grounds of the new Beirut Embassy. They had just completed negotiations for the restoration of Cyprus to Ottoman rule, ignoring Greek protests. It was the "act of charity" by the Sublime Porte - the rescue of thousands of Polish Jews from the conflict that had gripped their nation earlier in the year - that had turned the attitudes of the British Foreign Office around on the issue.
There was, of course, continuing guarantees that Britain would keep its strategic and now sovereign holdings in Cyprus. Akrotiri and Dhekelia would, under the agreement, remain British territory until 2015. With that settlement, discussion could now turn to other matters.
According to letters kept by Mallet's family, the first matter that came up for discussion was the status of Egypt. The Earl of Koubah had agreed to the establishment of a bicameral parliament and recognition of King George V as monarch of Egypt, in return for a guarantee that only the family of Mehemet Ali could serve as British Governors-General. In doing so, Egypt had joined Canada, Australia, South Africa, India, Ireland and Newfoundland as the seventh dominion of the British Empire. There were already significant plans in the pipeline to raise the general living standard, including the construction of the second major upgrade to the dam at Aswan. It would make possible more intensive farming of cotton, rice, wheat, corn and sugar; there would be a complete end to seasonal flooding. In addition, there would be a hydroelectric power generation station. There were also investigations into dredging the canals built by the ancient Egyptians through the Western Desert. The Grand Vizier also expressed the Sultan's pleasure at the decision by the British to make Alexandria a sanctuary for the Copts.
A second matter was the rebellion the previous month. Muhammed Ibn Ali Al-Idrisi, Prince of Asir, had risen in revolt against Beirut. He had stated that rule on the Yemeni border had been corrupt and lax. Fortunately, other vassals in the region had assisted in putting him in his place. However, that did not address the long-term need for consolidation of the Arabian peninsula. Of particular concern to the British were the provocations of the Sultan of Nejd, Ibn Saud.
The Emir of Rashid had repeatedly requested assistance to deal with the Saudi menace. However, the Rashidi instability had not been entirely the fault of the House of Saud. Their continual bloody infighting had made them a target for Saudi expansion. The Grand Vizier made clear that he understood the need to contain the Ikhwan, the religious militia which formed the main military force of Ibn Saud's restoration to power in 1912. Britain was concerned that a growing extremist Islamic militia could ultimately effect the transition of India into a functional dominion. In this matter, they had a convergence of opinion. However, the Sublime Porte would appreciate British assistance in acquiring weapons that were more effective than bayonets. The war in Persia had taught them they would not survive on their current weaponry alone.
Their intelligence had told them of a number of German advances: the Flammenwerfer, for example. Did the British have anything similar? the Grand Vizier asked. The Royal Navy's new self-loading Webley or the Lee-Enfield rifle might be helpful. The Germans also had something called the Maschinengewehr 08 - the Porte could understand why the British didn't want it. Too bulky. However, they wondered whether it might be possible to have such a weapon made on a smaller, more portable scale. An offer was made for joint development of such a weapon, but the Ambassador declined, well aware that such technology would never sell to the British High Command.
As discussions rounded up, the Grand Vizier made clear to the Ambassador that the Porte would not be ready for some time to take on the task of "liberating" the Arabian peninsula. However, it was clear that, sooner or later, this was a matter that required their attention and they were willing to pay Britain to supply the tools to achieve it.
The British Ambassador, Sir Louis Mallet, sat down across from the new Grand Vizier, Ahmed Tevfik Pasha, in the grounds of the new Beirut Embassy. They had just completed negotiations for the restoration of Cyprus to Ottoman rule, ignoring Greek protests. It was the "act of charity" by the Sublime Porte - the rescue of thousands of Polish Jews from the conflict that had gripped their nation earlier in the year - that had turned the attitudes of the British Foreign Office around on the issue.
There was, of course, continuing guarantees that Britain would keep its strategic and now sovereign holdings in Cyprus. Akrotiri and Dhekelia would, under the agreement, remain British territory until 2015. With that settlement, discussion could now turn to other matters.
According to letters kept by Mallet's family, the first matter that came up for discussion was the status of Egypt. The Earl of Koubah had agreed to the establishment of a bicameral parliament and recognition of King George V as monarch of Egypt, in return for a guarantee that only the family of Mehemet Ali could serve as British Governors-General. In doing so, Egypt had joined Canada, Australia, South Africa, India, Ireland and Newfoundland as the seventh dominion of the British Empire. There were already significant plans in the pipeline to raise the general living standard, including the construction of the second major upgrade to the dam at Aswan. It would make possible more intensive farming of cotton, rice, wheat, corn and sugar; there would be a complete end to seasonal flooding. In addition, there would be a hydroelectric power generation station. There were also investigations into dredging the canals built by the ancient Egyptians through the Western Desert. The Grand Vizier also expressed the Sultan's pleasure at the decision by the British to make Alexandria a sanctuary for the Copts.
A second matter was the rebellion the previous month. Muhammed Ibn Ali Al-Idrisi, Prince of Asir, had risen in revolt against Beirut. He had stated that rule on the Yemeni border had been corrupt and lax. Fortunately, other vassals in the region had assisted in putting him in his place. However, that did not address the long-term need for consolidation of the Arabian peninsula. Of particular concern to the British were the provocations of the Sultan of Nejd, Ibn Saud.
The Emir of Rashid had repeatedly requested assistance to deal with the Saudi menace. However, the Rashidi instability had not been entirely the fault of the House of Saud. Their continual bloody infighting had made them a target for Saudi expansion. The Grand Vizier made clear that he understood the need to contain the Ikhwan, the religious militia which formed the main military force of Ibn Saud's restoration to power in 1912. Britain was concerned that a growing extremist Islamic militia could ultimately effect the transition of India into a functional dominion. In this matter, they had a convergence of opinion. However, the Sublime Porte would appreciate British assistance in acquiring weapons that were more effective than bayonets. The war in Persia had taught them they would not survive on their current weaponry alone.
Their intelligence had told them of a number of German advances: the Flammenwerfer, for example. Did the British have anything similar? the Grand Vizier asked. The Royal Navy's new self-loading Webley or the Lee-Enfield rifle might be helpful. The Germans also had something called the Maschinengewehr 08 - the Porte could understand why the British didn't want it. Too bulky. However, they wondered whether it might be possible to have such a weapon made on a smaller, more portable scale. An offer was made for joint development of such a weapon, but the Ambassador declined, well aware that such technology would never sell to the British High Command.
As discussions rounded up, the Grand Vizier made clear to the Ambassador that the Porte would not be ready for some time to take on the task of "liberating" the Arabian peninsula. However, it was clear that, sooner or later, this was a matter that required their attention and they were willing to pay Britain to supply the tools to achieve it.
The Strausborg Treaty
In the city of Strausborg, in the Neutral Zone of Alsace-Lorraine, the new year was marked by a gathering of the elite of Europe's powerful. They had come to sign the Treaty named for the city, a treaty which they hoped would prevent all future war on the continent and beyond. It occurred two years earlier than expected, with France and Germany deciding that Austria's interference in Polish affairs and the resultant war justified an earlier dissolution of the Triple Alliance.
The conditions of the treaty were outlined as follows:
Article I - The member states would commit to fulfill obligations and regulations prescribed by the Commission with regard to the exercise of military power. No member state could legally declare war without the consent of two-thirds of the Commission's governing bodies. No new member could be permitted without the consent of two-thirds of the Commission's governing bodies. Members could only withdraw from the Commission with the consent of their people expressed by popular referendum and must provide two years' notice of such an action.
Article II - The Commission would form a governing Assembly and Council, with a permanent executive.
Article III - Representatives in the Assembly must be in proportion to population of the individual member states and must be chosen by the same method and on such terms in which the member state selects members of their own national parliament. It is empowered to discuss and make decisions on any matter that affects world peace.
Article IV - The Council will consist of one delegate appointed by the Government of each member state and may be changed at any time. Where a matter under consideration directly involves a member or members of the Council, that nation or those nations will be required to exclude themselves from voting, but may debate the issue before the Council.
Article V - All members must be present for a decision of the Assembly or the Council to have effect, though a three-quarters majority of all members of either body (not just those present) may choose to waive this restriction.
Article VI - The Assembly will appoint a Secretary General to manage the affairs of the Commission, with costs for the Secretariat being borne according to the decision of the Assembly. However, costs must be borne proportionally.
Article VII - A permanent seat will be established in Strausborg and the territory of Alsace-Lorraine will be eternally neutral and inviolable. All attendees will have diplomatic immunity.
Article VIII - Members will agree to reduce their military forces in line with recommendations from the Commission and will provide the Secretariat with all information requested about their military position, readiness and armaments. The Commission would retain a permanent force of 5000, to be dispatched as necessary for the purposes of peace and defence.
Article IX - The member states may only act together against all threats to territorial integrity and political independence with consent of the Assembly and Council, and an attack upon one member will be treated as an attack on all members.
Article X - Disputes between member states will be referred to the International Court of Justice for settlement and the members agree to abide by the terms arbitrated by the International Court of Justice. They further agree that, if they unwilling to comply, they will withdraw from membership of the Commission under the terms specified in Article I before launching war against the Commission. The International Court of Justice may also provide advisory opinions as requested by the Assembly or the Council. Disputes may be settled by the Council instead of the Court if parties agreed to abide by the decisions of the Council as though it were the Court.
Article XI - If a member state declares war on another member state, the aggressor shall be expelled from the Commission and shall be at war with all other members of the Commission. Trade sanctions shall apply against the aggressor state and all financial, commercial and personal relations between the citizens of the aggressor state and the citizens of remaining member states will be regarded as a crime. Member states will contribute military personnel to a campaign against the aggressor state at such levels as the Commission regards as necessary and will provide aid to the member state attacked to ensure loss is minimised.
Article XII - Where the dispute involves a member of the Commission and a non-member of the Commission, the non-member will be invited to take up interim membership and to allow the Commission to arbitrate a settlement that will prevent conflict.
Article XIII - All treaties made by member states shall not be effective until they have been reviewed and accepted by the Commission. The members agree not to seek treaties and obligations that would be inconsistent with being a Commission member.
Article XIV - The Commission may create international organisations under its direction to further the cause of peace.
The Treaty was signed and ratified by Germany (8 delegates), France (4 delegates), Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Sweden. The nineteen Assembly members and nine Council members elected France's Rene Viviani as Secretary General, but it was Aristide Briand who won the Nobel Prize. A supplemental treaty was also signed by the members, allowing for the Franco-German common market in strategic resources to be expanded to all members.
The first decision to come before the Commission was the argument over the status of Belgium, with France and Germany bringing the matter before the Commission in its early months. The International Court of Justice ordered that there should be a plebiscite for the people of Belgium to decide the matter. Each province was given the chance to choose between eleven different options.
In the ballot, Flanders voted overwhelmingly for independence, with only a tiny minority (7.7%) voting for union with the Netherlands. In Wallonia, 63.7% voted in favour of union with France, but in the province of Luxemburg, the vote was more divided. 26.7% voted for union with Luxembourg, 27.6% voted for independence and 45.7% voted for union with France. A second plebiscite came down in favour of French nationality over independence. The vote in Brussels had to be redone as well. Just under 50% voted to stay within Flanders, while the remaining votes were evenly split between going with Wallonia and becoming an independent city-state. When the independence option was removed as the lowest scoring of the two and the ballot reheld, the numbers went in favour of Flanders.
The end result of all the voting was that Flanders became an independent state with its capital at Brussels; Wallonia became part of the French Republic. His Majesty, King Albert, remained King of Flanders. And the Commission of Strausborg counted its first success.
In the city of Strausborg, in the Neutral Zone of Alsace-Lorraine, the new year was marked by a gathering of the elite of Europe's powerful. They had come to sign the Treaty named for the city, a treaty which they hoped would prevent all future war on the continent and beyond. It occurred two years earlier than expected, with France and Germany deciding that Austria's interference in Polish affairs and the resultant war justified an earlier dissolution of the Triple Alliance.
The conditions of the treaty were outlined as follows:
Article I - The member states would commit to fulfill obligations and regulations prescribed by the Commission with regard to the exercise of military power. No member state could legally declare war without the consent of two-thirds of the Commission's governing bodies. No new member could be permitted without the consent of two-thirds of the Commission's governing bodies. Members could only withdraw from the Commission with the consent of their people expressed by popular referendum and must provide two years' notice of such an action.
Article II - The Commission would form a governing Assembly and Council, with a permanent executive.
Article III - Representatives in the Assembly must be in proportion to population of the individual member states and must be chosen by the same method and on such terms in which the member state selects members of their own national parliament. It is empowered to discuss and make decisions on any matter that affects world peace.
Article IV - The Council will consist of one delegate appointed by the Government of each member state and may be changed at any time. Where a matter under consideration directly involves a member or members of the Council, that nation or those nations will be required to exclude themselves from voting, but may debate the issue before the Council.
Article V - All members must be present for a decision of the Assembly or the Council to have effect, though a three-quarters majority of all members of either body (not just those present) may choose to waive this restriction.
Article VI - The Assembly will appoint a Secretary General to manage the affairs of the Commission, with costs for the Secretariat being borne according to the decision of the Assembly. However, costs must be borne proportionally.
Article VII - A permanent seat will be established in Strausborg and the territory of Alsace-Lorraine will be eternally neutral and inviolable. All attendees will have diplomatic immunity.
Article VIII - Members will agree to reduce their military forces in line with recommendations from the Commission and will provide the Secretariat with all information requested about their military position, readiness and armaments. The Commission would retain a permanent force of 5000, to be dispatched as necessary for the purposes of peace and defence.
Article IX - The member states may only act together against all threats to territorial integrity and political independence with consent of the Assembly and Council, and an attack upon one member will be treated as an attack on all members.
Article X - Disputes between member states will be referred to the International Court of Justice for settlement and the members agree to abide by the terms arbitrated by the International Court of Justice. They further agree that, if they unwilling to comply, they will withdraw from membership of the Commission under the terms specified in Article I before launching war against the Commission. The International Court of Justice may also provide advisory opinions as requested by the Assembly or the Council. Disputes may be settled by the Council instead of the Court if parties agreed to abide by the decisions of the Council as though it were the Court.
Article XI - If a member state declares war on another member state, the aggressor shall be expelled from the Commission and shall be at war with all other members of the Commission. Trade sanctions shall apply against the aggressor state and all financial, commercial and personal relations between the citizens of the aggressor state and the citizens of remaining member states will be regarded as a crime. Member states will contribute military personnel to a campaign against the aggressor state at such levels as the Commission regards as necessary and will provide aid to the member state attacked to ensure loss is minimised.
Article XII - Where the dispute involves a member of the Commission and a non-member of the Commission, the non-member will be invited to take up interim membership and to allow the Commission to arbitrate a settlement that will prevent conflict.
Article XIII - All treaties made by member states shall not be effective until they have been reviewed and accepted by the Commission. The members agree not to seek treaties and obligations that would be inconsistent with being a Commission member.
Article XIV - The Commission may create international organisations under its direction to further the cause of peace.
The Treaty was signed and ratified by Germany (8 delegates), France (4 delegates), Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Sweden. The nineteen Assembly members and nine Council members elected France's Rene Viviani as Secretary General, but it was Aristide Briand who won the Nobel Prize. A supplemental treaty was also signed by the members, allowing for the Franco-German common market in strategic resources to be expanded to all members.
The first decision to come before the Commission was the argument over the status of Belgium, with France and Germany bringing the matter before the Commission in its early months. The International Court of Justice ordered that there should be a plebiscite for the people of Belgium to decide the matter. Each province was given the chance to choose between eleven different options.
In the ballot, Flanders voted overwhelmingly for independence, with only a tiny minority (7.7%) voting for union with the Netherlands. In Wallonia, 63.7% voted in favour of union with France, but in the province of Luxemburg, the vote was more divided. 26.7% voted for union with Luxembourg, 27.6% voted for independence and 45.7% voted for union with France. A second plebiscite came down in favour of French nationality over independence. The vote in Brussels had to be redone as well. Just under 50% voted to stay within Flanders, while the remaining votes were evenly split between going with Wallonia and becoming an independent city-state. When the independence option was removed as the lowest scoring of the two and the ballot reheld, the numbers went in favour of Flanders.
The end result of all the voting was that Flanders became an independent state with its capital at Brussels; Wallonia became part of the French Republic. His Majesty, King Albert, remained King of Flanders. And the Commission of Strausborg counted its first success.
Neroon
Banned
So the (hopefully better working than OTLs ) EU is born.
I would suggest of change to article one: A popular referendum on leaving must be accepted with at least 55% of the votes. Perhaps also a clause that any new members need to hold a referendum on joining that also requires a 55% acceptance, as this would legitimize the higher threshold. Personally i consider a 50% + 1 vote as too easy for isolationist agitators to reach.
One question: Why don't Finland or any of the Italian/Spanish successor states join in?
) EU is born.I would suggest of change to article one: A popular referendum on leaving must be accepted with at least 55% of the votes. Perhaps also a clause that any new members need to hold a referendum on joining that also requires a 55% acceptance, as this would legitimize the higher threshold. Personally i consider a 50% + 1 vote as too easy for isolationist agitators to reach.
One question: Why don't Finland or any of the Italian/Spanish successor states join in?
So the (hopefully better working than OTLs
I would suggest of change to article one: A popular referendum on leaving must be accepted with at least 55% of the votes. Perhaps also a clause that any new members need to hold a referendum on joining that also requires a 55% acceptance, as this would legitimize the higher threshold. Personally i consider a 50% + 1 vote as too easy for isolationist agitators to reach.
One question: Why don't Finland or any of the Italian/Spanish successor states join in?
Agree with your suggestion - good idea.
Finland recently got Estonia from Russia in return for a permanent alliance. She won't be joining anything that Russia doesn't join and Russia, like Britain, is a bit suspicious. As to the Cisalpinians and the Aragonese, they are still pursuing Austria-Hungary, who does not wish to join because she is concerned about being limited in regards to her activity with Serbia and is currently on the nose diplomatically over the Poland thing.
I hope so. Honest answer, I don't know. I considered the Brits, but I don't think they will join this type of thing initially, particularly considering they have the imperial structure that the others don't. I am thinking that it might be something the British will look into during the early 1930's (depending, of course, on which way the Americans go in TTL).
The Russians are still uncertain about limiting themselves. Don't forget that, even though they are still pushing, they have a government that is committed to the international spread of socialism. They had to sort out the Polish question once and for all in 1916 as well as decide what to do with Lithuania. They are also in the middle of a reorganisation that will become apparent in 1917 or 1918. I think they may wait until after Trotsky steps down, which should be around that same period, and then it will depend on who succeeds him.
The Porte does not want to have to seek approval for a war that is already on her agenda. She wants to crush the "Wahhabee tyrannists and heretics" and unite the entire Arabian peninsula (save for the current-day UAE, which is a British protectorate) under her rule.
I have no concrete plans for any country joining or not joining.
The Race Card Plays Again
James Clark just couldn't get a break. Shortly after his crushing defeat in the mid-term congressional elections, he recognised the need to change tack on the ship of state. The Constitution Party had wanted to abolish the literacy test explicit in the US immigration laws to put further downward pressure on inflation and wages. The President stepped up to the plate, took a swing and missed. There was no way that Senator Beveridge was giving the man a victory. Beveridge accused the President of "selling out the people of the United States" and had "suspicions" that the immigration debate might be a way for the Socialists "to divide and conquer". He refused to let the President score a legislative victory.
Then, in February, 1915, African American groups began to picket the screening of a new movie, Birth of a Nation, leading to the first ethnic clashes in quite some time. The relative racial harmony since he had come to office had been a hook on which the President had often raised his banner and, while he called it a "regretful and unfortunate piece of work", the President was criticised by Congressman Dubois of the Socialist Party for failing to ban the film and by Senator Beveridge for failing to protect the civil rights of African Americans.
Seven days after the showing of the film, he launched the campaign that he hoped would turn the country, and the party, around. Standing on newly reclaimed land in the national capital, he laid the first stone in a memorial to President Abraham Lincoln. He had decided that if he would be condemned for racial problems, he might as well make some progress in that area. Announcing that he would emulate the Great Emancipator, he announced the "New Citizenship" scheme, to promote African Americans to sign up for the vote. He also assumed control of the National Guard, an act which Beveridge endorsed, bringing it into the National Investigations Bureau to force desegregation in the South against the screams of his own party members.
Finally, he announced the Civil Rights Act of 1915, closing on the unsuccessful Civil Rights Act of 1912. It established the right of the National Investigations Bureau to inspect local voter registration rolls, a duty to participate in a door knock campaign to increase voter registration (particularly in the South) and to make it a criminal offence to actively discourage a person from registering to vote or from actually voting. As Senate Majority Leader, Beveridge endorsed the scheme. However, the President had shot his party in the foot. One by one, Southern Democrats lined up to oppose and filibuster. While the President stumbled, Beveridge announced his opposition to the filibuster rule and pledged that he would have its power curtailed once the President managed to get the legislation through the Congress. Though the Act would eventually pass due to Republican support, the staunch opposition of Democrats continued to embarrass the President.
As a result of the Act, registrations of African Americans rose by a further 6% by the time of the 1916 Presidential elections. Regrettably, violence in the South also rose and, in October, Congressman Dubois would spend nine days in a Georgia prison, allegedly for inciting violence, before the President was forced to intervene and have him released. The Georgian police involved were removed by the National Guard and charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. And most of the new additions to the roll would decide to vote Republican.
James Clark just couldn't get a break. Shortly after his crushing defeat in the mid-term congressional elections, he recognised the need to change tack on the ship of state. The Constitution Party had wanted to abolish the literacy test explicit in the US immigration laws to put further downward pressure on inflation and wages. The President stepped up to the plate, took a swing and missed. There was no way that Senator Beveridge was giving the man a victory. Beveridge accused the President of "selling out the people of the United States" and had "suspicions" that the immigration debate might be a way for the Socialists "to divide and conquer". He refused to let the President score a legislative victory.
Then, in February, 1915, African American groups began to picket the screening of a new movie, Birth of a Nation, leading to the first ethnic clashes in quite some time. The relative racial harmony since he had come to office had been a hook on which the President had often raised his banner and, while he called it a "regretful and unfortunate piece of work", the President was criticised by Congressman Dubois of the Socialist Party for failing to ban the film and by Senator Beveridge for failing to protect the civil rights of African Americans.
Seven days after the showing of the film, he launched the campaign that he hoped would turn the country, and the party, around. Standing on newly reclaimed land in the national capital, he laid the first stone in a memorial to President Abraham Lincoln. He had decided that if he would be condemned for racial problems, he might as well make some progress in that area. Announcing that he would emulate the Great Emancipator, he announced the "New Citizenship" scheme, to promote African Americans to sign up for the vote. He also assumed control of the National Guard, an act which Beveridge endorsed, bringing it into the National Investigations Bureau to force desegregation in the South against the screams of his own party members.
Finally, he announced the Civil Rights Act of 1915, closing on the unsuccessful Civil Rights Act of 1912. It established the right of the National Investigations Bureau to inspect local voter registration rolls, a duty to participate in a door knock campaign to increase voter registration (particularly in the South) and to make it a criminal offence to actively discourage a person from registering to vote or from actually voting. As Senate Majority Leader, Beveridge endorsed the scheme. However, the President had shot his party in the foot. One by one, Southern Democrats lined up to oppose and filibuster. While the President stumbled, Beveridge announced his opposition to the filibuster rule and pledged that he would have its power curtailed once the President managed to get the legislation through the Congress. Though the Act would eventually pass due to Republican support, the staunch opposition of Democrats continued to embarrass the President.
As a result of the Act, registrations of African Americans rose by a further 6% by the time of the 1916 Presidential elections. Regrettably, violence in the South also rose and, in October, Congressman Dubois would spend nine days in a Georgia prison, allegedly for inciting violence, before the President was forced to intervene and have him released. The Georgian police involved were removed by the National Guard and charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. And most of the new additions to the roll would decide to vote Republican.
Neroon
Banned
How exactly was is sorted out? Unless i missed something your post about the Polish War stopped with their surrender and we don't know anything yet about the status of P-L after the war.
Given that your TL is mainly about: Better than OTL for everyone that's realistic, you could have Article 3 become the driving force behing the European colonial powers eventually granting "statehood" to their colonies and full citizenship (with some realistic assimilation, language and conversion requirements) for the natives. Since this would increse their weight in the Assembly and the best way to get people do to the right thing is if it is to their personal gain
.Nitpick: You can call the city either by its French name Strasbourg (which is, afaik, what English-speakers mostly use) or by its German name Straßburg. It is, however, not called Strausborg (although it is good for weird mental images).
The Constitution Party isn't a moderate party; it is a business party. And business wants more immigrants with less restrictions because it wants workers. The longer immigration remains bound, the less competition there is in the labor market, the more upward pressure on wages.
The Republican Party has moved into the mold of a nationalist party: they want to rebuild the military and adopt expansionist foreign policies, centralise government authority, maintain ethnic separation though not segregation, drawing on Romantic Idealism, as well as populist ideas like limiting profit and generous social benefits.
The Democrats are divided and confused. They are only in power because people began to fear where the Republicans were going. However, as much as they know that they oppose the Republicans, they are still trying to find what they stand for. They keep winning in the South because the South hate the Republicans. They do agree that they are against imperialism and they are trying to find a balance in the business arena, however, the business community was not looking for balance after Roosevelt - they were looking for a complete windback of all his policies. They still generally support pietism (though not strongly), free trade, worker benefits and are pro-immigration.
The Socialists are not communists; they are participating in bourgeoisie governments and are generally representing the poor and low waged. Their fundamental principle is economic equality.