Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg
- Thread starter RiverDelta
- Start date
An interesting way to make the Federalists more equal yet still different - Olson gets a chance to peacefully negate the CSA uprising, but always faces a strong AUS, Garner is exactly the other way around, and Landon can't peacefully negate either but is the only one that can swing things to weaken both the AUS and the CSA.
This is really good and I like it, but I really hope my Commonwealth save still works because Comrade Flynn is running for re-election and I have volunteers in france trying desperately to hold back the Kaiser.
Man my Garner run has been fun. Compromised with Huey and crushed the CSA within 9 months. I actually went the Chaffee doctrine this time and encircled the Syndie Army that was pushing west towards Seattle. Am currently rebuilding and preparing to join the Entente and crush the 3rd Internationale Mexico.
Because Democracy > American Caesar, and neither Olson or Alf have a snowman's chance in hell of winning. And since compromise means a shorter war, that means less casualties. Less casualties means a stronger America.
...
if you elect Olson, who actually has the BEST chance of winning (and frankly I'm surprised that a stuffed shirt like Garner is even a contender after a DECADE of economic stagnation and government inaction), he can compromise with the Reds, thereby keeping America's industrial heartland in the USA, resulting in the shortest possible civil war with the smallest possible loss of life, AND you aren't allying with the guy who plays footsie with the Klan and set himself up as Supreme Leader Governor Senator of Louisiana.
Garner is the WORST establishment option, both in terms of long-term effects of his policies and in terms of actually winning the war. Olson is by far the BEST candidate possible out of the 5 possible POTUSes in '36.
What about Landon? Isn’t he able to compromise with the SPA or AFP?
No, but he can weaken both. Up to you whether that's better or worse for the Feds than coopting one of them.
In terms of policy, Landon appears to be quite moderate, as he did approve of much of the New Deal IOTL, supported the Progressive Party in the 1912 election, and even supported LBJ’s Great Society programs later on in his life. He also appears to be a more pro-business candidate, according to his description in KR, so his economic and domestic policies after the Civil War would likely seek a compromise between helping the people while also supporting big business.
I don’t know exactly how well he’d be able to handle the Second Civil War, but since the PSA only rises up if MacArthur does his coup, I’d say he has a somewhat decent chance if the CSA and AUS are weakened enough.
I don’t know exactly how well he’d be able to handle the Second Civil War, but since the PSA only rises up if MacArthur does his coup, I’d say he has a somewhat decent chance if the CSA and AUS are weakened enough.
I haven't done the modified Landon path yet, but given it is Direct Economic Intervention and explicitly can reduce the influence of both the SPA and AFP, it seems like Landon is able to present a programme that appeals to moderate AFP and SPA members enough for many of them to flip to his side, at least in the face of actually rising up in military rebellion (which weakens both the AUS and CSA claim to popular legitimacy when they do), but is unable to make Olson's personal appeal to the SPA leadership or Garner's tailor-made exceptions for core Long policies, leading both the SPA leadership and Long to ultimately calling for rising up against the USA (but, if Landon has done well, not being listened to by as many as in any other path). Olson's successful path is probably the most reliable path to a short civil war, but Landon's could have potential as allowing quicker military defeats of either rebel factions, and although I doubt foreign support is that finely tuned would reasonably be the Federalist faction with the broadest appeal amongst capitalist countries.
Last edited:
Tiburon
Banned
In my last game as Nationalist France(I saw someone call them "Sand-France" somewhere and now that's how I think of them) the entente recognized the PSA as the legitimate government and they had volunteers from me, Canada, Austria and national populist Japan.
The PSA only arises to contend the USA tag's claim to be the Federalist faction if the USA is run by MacArthur, which it won't be in a Landon presidency.
Well, if the Garner-Wagner Bill passes then Alf Landon probably could win, and as others have discussed, while he can't prevent one side from rising he can weaken both sides. But the reason I don't think Olson could ever be elected is because I don't believe the coalition could ever form. I don't think he even gets a chance. In times of internal crisis people become more divided in the United States and more entrenched. Not less. The Democratic Party however (and thus Garner) is in a much better position than the GOP and thus I see their victory as the most likely outcome should the bill fail. I didn't exactly care for Garner. I elected Quentin in 1940.
At the end of the day, I dislike the CSA more than I dislike Long. So I'd rather fight an American Civil War with a Democratic White Army vs a Syndicalist Red Army. It fits my sense of story telling better than "Huey Long tears apart the nation because he's a corrupt motherf*cker". Frankly, while I don't like him and I hate his political allies, I don't think he's really the bogeyman you see him as.
I mean, you could say that...but at the same time, it's been ten years of nonstop downward spiral. The establishment has failed to a degree that truly boggles the mind. There is an epidemic of child abandonment and homelessness sweeping every state in the nation, and even the fat cats are starting to feel the pinch. The Democratic party has lost most of its Southern base to the AFP, and the Republicans are barely holding on in New England and the Pacific states (I assume Democrats and Republicans will both be reasonable contestants in the plains), while the midwest, PA, WV, and some of the mid-Atlantic states are being taken over by socialists.
With the establishment in dire danger of being replaced, I think that Olson is actually the MOST likely possibility.
What appeal does Huey have over the Reds? The worst the Reds can get is "Stalin lite" and the best they can get is "a democracy trying to make this not being racist thing work properly in the '40s, challenging as that can be", the BEST the AUS can get is "Putin, but not as racist or openly oppressive" while the worst the AUS can get is "Hitler, crossed with Himmler, in a white hood, burning a cross made of black people so that reptoid alien Jesus will come down from his flying saucer to bless the master race". Quite frankly I think the question of who's more moral is obvious.
With the establishment in dire danger of being replaced, I think that Olson is actually the MOST likely possibility.
What appeal does Huey have over the Reds? The worst the Reds can get is "Stalin lite" and the best they can get is "a democracy trying to make this not being racist thing work properly in the '40s, challenging as that can be", the BEST the AUS can get is "Putin, but not as racist or openly oppressive" while the worst the AUS can get is "Hitler, crossed with Himmler, in a white hood, burning a cross made of black people so that reptoid alien Jesus will come down from his flying saucer to bless the master race". Quite frankly I think the question of who's more moral is obvious.