​
https://preview.redd.it/5688p24fwr2b1.jpg?width=895&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3021b4d79926759d554a2a85c503a6ff45ccadc9
On July 14-15 of 1940, elections to the People's Parliament [Liaudies Seimas] were held in Lithuania. These elections had an unusual content and significance compared to previous elections. Here the false declarations and unrealistic promises of all kinds of benefits to the people, which the bourgeois parties usually made, were put aside and pushed into obscurity by two cardinal issues:
1) On the proclamation of Lithuania as a fellow Soviet Socialist Republic
and
2) On the accession of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic into the Soviet Union as a Union Republic.
The overwhelming majority of the population took part in the elections - 95.51% of voters compared to 38% of voters who actually took part in the last elections. Moreover, 99.19% of voters voted for the candidates of the Union of the Working People of Lithuania. And this is natural, because the question was clear, understandable to everybody and affected every Lithuanian in one way or another. So, by voting for supporters of Lithuania's accession into the Soviet Union, one thereby determined his attitude to this issue. By voting in 1940, the Lithuanian people, perhaps for the first time in their entire history, could freely reveal their will and their aspirations as a whole, as a people, and, taking advantage of this opportunity, demanded the Soviet system of governance for themselves.
​
https://preview.redd.it/orkigsid6s2b1.jpg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=600a561bbc9a4a8db02c0db02471c3b7d7b5d9d1
Reactionaries, enemies of the Soviet system of governance, were enraged by this result. Even the liberal democratic circles threw up their hands in surprise. Unable to find, and unwilling to look for the real reason for such a turn by the Lithuanian people, in the specific conditions of their life, they sought to discredit the elections themselves, the voting procedure. But even here these people suffered a fiasco: the genuine democratic nature of the elections did not give any real grounds for defaming them. And, nevertheless, this did not prevent the reactionary press from coming out with hostile articles and bringing forth, as expected from them, facts invented in the editorial offices.
One should not be surprised here. On the contrary, it would be surprising if, say, not the reactionary, but at least the liberal-bourgeois press reacted to these elections positively. In fact, how much work was spent for the political deception of the people, for propaganda and agitation, for school "education", religious influence, administrative pressure, etc.! Mountains of slander were pushed against the USSR, against the Soviet government! It is difficult even to name all the means the Smetona government used to influence the Lithuanian people in order to discourage them from any desire to find out the truth about real life in the Soviet Union, in order to isolate the Lithuanians from even the slightest influence of Soviet culture. For this purpose, it sought maximum isolation of Lithuania from the USSR, not only politically and culturally, but also economically.
It seemed that there were no channels, no ways through which the Lithuanian people's ties with the Soviet Union could develop. However, the actual reality cruelly mocked those who worked so zealously to darken the consciousness of the Lithuanian people, those who tried their best to introduce inertia and indifference into the consciousness of the people. At the first opportunity, the Lithuanian people loudly declared: I want to be a member of the Soviet Union! That's what infuriated the enemies of the Soviet form of governance and still infuriates them to this day. What mean reasons pushed the Lithuanian people on the path to the Soviet system, to its accession into the USSR? There are many very convincing reasons. That they are serious is clear to every Lithuanian, because with his mother's milk he was instilled with the thought that the most valuable thing is the independence of his own country, its greatness. But reasonable people had doubts about the "independence" that Lithuania had, uncertainty about its reality, because the facts contradicted it too much. No sooner had the republic organized itself and the government settled in its capital, Vilnius, than a certain Polish general with his detachment of troops seized Vilnius, expelled the Lithuanian government, and the capital of Lithuania was annexed to Poland, and Lithuania lost its largest and most industrialized city. For the sake of decency, the press made a little noise, and that was the end of it. The suzerain powers did not even lift a finger to restore the violated rights of Lithuania, because the attacker was also patronized by them and probably more valuable as an open enemy of the Soviet Union.
With Hitler's rise to power in Germany, the specter of Lithuania's "independence" has diminished even more. In 1939, Hitler seized Klaipeda, and the Lithuanian government, filled with fear for its own existence, was glad that the seizure was limited only to the Klaipeda region and the treaty, which in effect included the entire Lithuanian economy in the German economic master plan. I do not want to accuse the government that existed of not wanting to do anything to defend the country, but only to illustrate the phantom nature of the "independence" of Lithuania during that time. It would be a mistake to think that the Lithuanian people did not strive for real independence. In 1919, after the expulsion of German troops, the Soviet government was established in Lithuania, which signed an alliance with Soviet Belarus. But the real independence of Lithuania was quickly liquidated by the Entente and the German troops called into the fight by it. In the language of the European bourgeois press, this was called the "restoration" of Lithuanian "independence".
The country's politics and economy developed in accordance with external conditions. After the defeat of the Soviet government, a democratic government was organized. (It was impossible to immediately install a fascist regime after crushing the Soviet government). It didn't last long. Apparently, the common path of development of the Baltic countries was manifested here: the suppression of the Soviet government -> democracy (as a transitional form of power) -> fascism. Obviously, for some "champions" of democracy, fascism is more acceptable, because any democracy, even by a tiny bit, at least for appearance's sake, must do something in the interests of the people. Fascism does not even concern itself with such tasks. That is why fascism in small countries is encouraged by the big "guardians of democracy". The establishment of the fascist regime in Lithuania, the Smetona regime, made Lithuania into a cash cow for German capital. The Germans were not content with just subjugating the Lithuanian economy to their plan. They methodically introduced themselves into all the avenues of Lithuanian life, turning Lithuania into a springboard for an attack on the Soviet Union, which, in fact, they did not hide from Smetona, who shared their thoughts. On the contrary, the preparation of Lithuania's territory for military purposes seemed to justify the introduction of Germans into all the pores of Lithuanian life. In this way, the Germans killed two birds with one stone:
1) They prepared a military bridgehead
and
2) Quietly adapted Lithuania into a German Hinterland.
The Smetona government saw the danger that threatened the independent existence of Lithuania, and, in fact, did not resist German aggression, trying to curry favor with Hitler, with whose support it now owed its existence to. The only hope of Smetona and his supporters was that they would remain in power under German fascism in one form or another and would exploit at least some part of the people's labor. The above facts clearly show what was really hidden under the decorum of Lithuanian "independence". Smetona's internal policy naturally corresponded to the external one. It consisted in imitation of German fascism, in adapting it to local conditions.
Now even the blind can see that fascism with its ideology and politics is a terrible social evil generated by the era of imperialism. Anyone who has been to the south has seen with his own eyes how a huge tree - pine, oak, cypress - was wrapped by a parasitic plant with bright green leaves. With its stems, it presses tightly against the tree, and numerous shoots dig into the bark and pull out the juices. It is possible to save a tree from death only by destroying this parasitic plant. Fascism is a parasite of the state tree. And if the people do not destroy it in a timely manner, it will inevitably lead the country to the greatest of disasters. Experience has shown that fascism is equally fatal for both large and small countries alike. Having no desire to awaken the creative forces of the people, on the contrary, deliberately putting them to sleep, so that it would be easier to turn people into an obedient herd, the fascist leaders, for example, in Hungary, Romania, etc., shouted furiously: "Great Hungary!", "Great Romania!". It was laughable. But all the fascist meanness was hidden behind this farce.
As for Smetona, he did not even have this prop. His main desire was to cover up, if possible, his dependence on Hitler, to disguise it in front of the Lithuanian people. The task is difficult and, in fact, impossible, because the Germans climbed and penetrated into all the holes and cracks, seized banks, and through them the industrial enterprises, wholesale trade, flooded the country with their literature, films and generally felt no worse in Lithuania than they would at home. In short: there was, perhaps not quite noticeable to the eyes of an ordinary person, but an inevitable process of germanizing Lithuania [1].
Relations between Germany and Lithuania progressed towards not only the actual but also the formal transformation of Lithuania into a German colony (Smetona's request to Hitler about the entry of German troops into Lithuania). If Smetona, seeing all this danger, even wanted to prevent it, then, having neither material nor military resources, and most importantly, not using the moral support of the Lithuanian people, he would not be able to resist German aggression. Smetona had only one path left, which he followed: no resistance, but harmonizing the life of the whole country with German demands and humble obedience to Hitler. With such a "policy" he decided to prolong the appearance of Lithuania's "independent" existence.
Naturally, such a government could not satisfy the people. It could not and did not want to serve the interests of the Lithuanian people. The narrow egoistic interests of this government were closely linked with German interests, and its spiritual demands were related to Hitlerism. It means that the entire state policy of Smetona's government rested on the enrichment of a small handful of people, on the systemic robbery of the people, on the strangulation and all-round emasculation of their national culture.
Perhaps there is no country - both in Europe and in the Americas - where Lithuanian migrants who fled from their native country not only from political repression, but even more simply from hunger, would not be found. The Lithuanian intelligentsia, especially the progressive intelligentsia, was not in the best position either. The opportunity to live and breathe was only in leaving, because they had no work in their native country, and fascism stifled every free thought. The fascist octopus tightly wrapped itself around the Lithuanian people and led them to their imminent death.
https://preview.redd.it/ipp1pzqt3s2b1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=1de6d0bb0a3864dd560557346226e8f300cfb67e
These are the reasons that prompted the Lithuanian people to vote for Lithuania's entry into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Of course, when voting, the Lithuanian people not only desired to get rid of the unbearable conditions in which their life took place, but they fully took into account the benefits and advantages that the Soviet system brings them. One of the serious factors is that the Lithuanian people, having joined the USSR, acquired real independence. The enemies persistently insist that Lithuania is dependent, since it is one of the sixteen republics in the Union. But these are all enemy fairy tales. Why are entrepreneurs organized into government trusts, syndicates and enterprises? They will say that there is a naked calculation of increased profits from the monopoly. Yes, that's right. True, some of the propertied classes hypocritically condemn them for this from a "moral" point of view. But only the workers' organizations are really fighting them. And trusts, syndicates and enterprises are developing and growing stronger. At the same time, it does not occur to any entrepreneur that he is losing his industrial independence.
I will give other examples. Now everywhere workers and employees unite in trade unions. Who can say that they lose their personal freedom and independence at the same time? Moreover, the trade unions of workers and employees of any state strive to be members of an international professional organization. And this is quite natural, because each of them understands that this is the only way the one can defend personal freedom and independence.
Furthermore, a peasant, protecting his well-being, enters a cooperative, and the coop association formed in the country links up with cooperative organizations of other countries, and there is already an international cooperative association - the alliance. Only moneylenders, predatory traders and speculators can shed crocodile tears over the fact that peasants that are united in cooperatives cease to be independent landowners.
Every association is an organization that restricts an individual to one degree or another. For example, the same peasant, who is a member of a cooperative, undertakes to hand over all or part of his marketable products to the coop. This restricts the peasant in his freedom to dispose of his products in a way. But in reality, the coop protects him from a predatory buyer.
The USSR has sixteen Union republics with a well-known, but equal limitation of their sovereignty. They form a single union state with a different national way of life, with a diverse national form of culture and historical past. Only the Soviet system and Lenin's national policy ensure and guarantee them unbreakable unity and genuine friendship, real freedom and independence. Protecting the whole, the Soviet system and Lenin's national policy give full opportunity for the unlimited development of each republic, every nationality…
The enormous work by our party to create and strengthen the multinational state has been a complete success. Comrade Stalin said the following:
"The absence of the exploiter classes, which are the main masterminds behind the international conflict; the absence of exploitation, with its mutual distrust and brewing nationalist passions; the presence of power of the working class, which is the enemy of all enslavement and a faithful bearer of the ideas of internationalism; the actual implementation of mutual assistance of peoples in all areas of economic and social life; finally, the flourishing of the national culture of the peoples of the USSR, national in form, socialist in content - all these and similar factors have led to the following: the appearance of the peoples of the USSR has radically changed, the feeling of mutual distrust has disappeared in them, a sense of mutual friendship has developed in them and, thus, real fraternal cooperation of peoples has been established in the system of a single union state.
As a result, we now have a fully developed multinational socialist state that has withstood all the tests of time, the strength of which could be envied by any nation-state in any part of the world" [2]
During the Great Patriotic War, the strength of the cohesion of the peoples of the Soviet Union, based on Lenin's national policy, withstood enormous trials. The war with fascist Germany and its satellite states clearly showed how valuable the Soviet Union is for every Union Republic. The enemy occupied all of Lithuania and went far beyond its borders to the east. It seemed that the country had perished under the Nazi boot. But far from the Lithuanian borders, near Orel, a Lithuanian division fought in the All-Union Red Army. And in the capital of the Soviet Union, Moscow, there was a Lithuanian government that called upon and organized, as much as possible, the forces capable of fighting inside Lithuania.
No matter how loud the German military drums thundered, no matter how much fascist propaganda tried to distort the actual situation on the fronts and in the rear of the Soviet armies, no matter how cruelly the Gestapo tortured Soviet patriots, the Lithuanian people heard and saw that a fierce struggle for their liberation was going on. This undoubtedly inspired him with great confidence in victory, inspired the partisans in their difficult and daring struggle in the distant rear of the enemy, and their heroic actions, in turn, raised the spirit and morale of the people. The names of Marytė Melnikaitė, Urbanavičius (Kurmelis), Apyvala, Vladas Baronas, Jacinavičius, Motieka and others have earned glory not only by themselves, but also because they embody the best traditions of the Lithuanian people, their heroism and boundless devotion to their Homeland.
​
Bronius Urbanavičius
Next, let's take the work efficiency of the people as a whole. Statesmen, industrialists, journalists of capitalist countries continuously call for increased labor productivity as the basis of the country's well-being. The fascist Lithuanian government was not far behind in this. But with the policy pursued by this government, with Lithuania's economic dependence on Germany, the limits of increasing labor efficiency were very limited, and this increase was mainly directed at greater exploitation of the workers. Lithuania's economic development also had purely objective limitations: the small territory of the country, the absence of the main elements necessary for production - coal, iron and generally valuable ores, its predominantly agrarian nature. All this, as it were, naturally predetermined the backwardness of Lithuanian industry and, what is most tragic, the lack of prospects in the future.
By joining the Soviet Union, the Lithuanian people radically transformed the economic situation of their country. From an appendage of Germany, from the backwater of Europe, Lithuania received unlimited opportunities to turn into an advanced and highly developed national republic, as a full member of the great Union. Now her household will be built in a new way. The structure of the industry will change, it will acquire a character corresponding to modern advanced state of technology. It is now provided with a powerful raw material base and an unlimited market for the sale of its products. There are no objective obstacles to specialization, and hence to increase in the efficiency of labor, as the basis of welfare of the people.
In fact, what can now prevent the construction of any factory specialized in the production of any type of goods? Nothing but a shortage of skilled workers, engineers and technical personnel among Lithuanians. I will illustrate my point with an example. In Lithuania, for example, a machine tooling or machine-building plant is being erected. The Union as a whole needs thousands of machines, the plant also produces thousands of machines, but the Republic of Lithuania can use only hundreds or dozens of machines - such is its need for the kind of machines that this plant produces. Wouldn't it be better for the plant to produce machines only for this republic? Of course, technically it is possible, but economically it will be irrational, unprofitable, production will become artisanal and, most importantly, the quality of products will be worse, productivity is much lower. In this way, not only will we not get closer to the American technological level, but we will move away from it, even if the plant had first-class equipment. But the socialist economy strives for a higher productivity of labor than that which capitalism is able to create in its most advanced countries.
Thus, in order to have high labor productivity and its efficiency, it is not enough to have a wish and even a desire to have it, but we also need the appropriate economic and social conditions that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics gives to all constituent republics. With these arguments, I do not want to belittle or downplay the importance of local or Republican industry, which mainly fulfills local needs. But local industry can also work productively only if it is abundantly supplied with good machines. This is well understood by the leaders of the Republics, who also bear responsibility for the enterprises of all-Union significance.
The Soviet government invested a lot of money and labor in the development of agriculture, which became the largest and most mechanized agriculture in the world. It has become productive, of which the best proof is the satisfaction of its military needs. Lithuanian agriculture is considered productive, it produced significant products for export. But we cannot close our eyes and ignore the fact that this productivity was based on the enormous exertion of the peasantry, on the hard work of the middle peasant on his farm and the farmhand in a larger farm. Physical labor took up their entire lives, leaving no time to satisfy their spiritual needs.
Under the Soviet system of governance, the Lithuanian peasant will not agree to such a life. His public interests are rapidly expanding, cultural demands are growing, which require time to satisfy themselves. The Soviet government highly values labor, celebrating labor feats with awards. But at the same time, it spares no expense to increase cultural and political education of the village. All this imperiously requires mechanization, the introduction of modern agricultural machines adapted to Lithuanian conditions.
These are the ways and means by which the Soviet government increases labor productivity both in industry and in agriculture. Undoubtedly, the Lithuanian people are using these opportunities to their fullest. Of course, it is not easy to move forward the economy and culture of the entire country, especially if it has a lot to catching up to do. But the life of the people, their well-being, demand this first and foremost. The creative forces of the people are inexhaustible, you just need to be able to awaken them.
The questions that I have asked casually and slightly indicate the enormous and complex nature of the tasks facing the Lithuanian people and its intelligentsia.
Fulfilling the program set by the Communist Party, the Union Government not only protects, but also ensures the flourishing of national culture of each Union republic, the established customs and, in particular, the native language of its peoples. It creates all the necessary conditions for the fruitful work of the intelligentsia in its field. Therefore, the Lithuanian intelligentsia bears full responsibility to its people for the cultural prosperity of the republic.
The national school is the first step in human development, the most important stage in the process of forming an active citizen and a patriot of his Homeland - therefore, it must be at the Homeland's top priority. During the implementation of this program, the Homeland should instill in the younger generations a love for their native language, folk songs, native landscape and at the same time expand the horizon of students as future citizens of the Soviet Union, and collectively instill in them a love for the great and multinational Motherland – the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. From this we see that the understanding of all-Union Soviet patriotism is not opposed to the local one. It is from local patriotism, as a popular source, that patriotism grows towards the Soviet system of governance, towards the USSR as a whole.
I think the Lithuanian government helps a lot and in the future will allocate even more of its resources towards the development of literature in the Lithuanian language, especially original fiction, drawing its plots from Lithuanian folk life and contributing to the awakening of new creative forces in the people.
Without a doubt, Lithuania will take an honorable place among the Union republics in the development of all kinds of art and sports, and its folk choirs will be an inexhaustible source for the development of national music and theater.
https://preview.redd.it/5oo4a5c1fs2b1.jpg?width=805&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7d15083c272edffd9f4f5f3a8e8285210e4f05f8
The war is over. The shackles that bound the creative forces of the Lithuanian people have been removed forever. I sincerely wish the Lithuanian people success in building their Soviet state, in the development of industry, agriculture and culture, national in form and socialist in its content.
​
"Soviet Lithuania" No. 289,
December 28, 1945
Printed according to the text of the newspaper
​
Notes:
[1] As it turned out from the documents presented by the American prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials, the Germans planned to completely destroy the Baltic States and resettles their peoples, in particular Lithuanians, to Belarus. The essence of Rosenberg's instructions on this issue was reduced in practice to the destruction of the Lithuanian people. "The solution to the colonial problem," he wrote, "is not the Baltic question per se, but a question that concerns greater Germany and it must be resolved accordingly."
[2] Josef Stalin. Problems of Leninism, 2nd Ed., Gospolitizdat, 1953, pp. 551-552.-582. (in Russian)
​
Source: Калинин М.И. Статьи и речи (1941-1946 гг.). ЛИТОВСКИЙ НАРОД НА НОВОМ ПУТИ (292-296).

Hi all, I travel a lot for work on sketchy airlines. Thus I am always trying to perfect my carry-on only set up! Here is a recent trip itinerary:

• Day 1> Fly to Australia (mild weather), overnight
• Day 2> Fly to Vanuatu (tropical weather)
• Days 3-4> Work
• Day 5> Fly to Australia (mild weather), overnight
• Day 6> Fly back home

Bags

• Random coach backpack my MIL got my from the outlets, maybe 25l?
• Baggu packable tote, black
• Random woven crossbody purse (stuffed inside the Baggu)

My two bags. The woven purse is inside the black tote, along with my camera equipment and anything I would need easy access to on the plane.

Clothes

All of this goes into two random hand-me-down packing cubes I've accumulated over the years. Shoes go in a plastic grocery bag.

• Shirts:
  • Athleta turquoise linen wrap shirt
  • H&M brown wrap shirt
  • Target white button down (great, multipurpose piece) (worn)
  • REI turquoise t-shirt
  • REI crop trop / yoga bra thing
  • Work-issued polo
  • Black Diamond rain jacket (worn)
• Dress:
  • Amazon floral dress (super cheap, which also means the material is super thin and easy to pack)
• Bottoms:
  • Calvin Klein jeans (normally I wouldn't bring jeans but Australia was quite chilly so I wanted the thicker pant) (worn)
  • Athleta Brooklyn black pants (very thin, great for packing and for tropical weather)
• Workout:
  • Workout bra, quick dry t-shirt, quick dry shorts (The most important thing for workout gear is that I can wash it every day in my sink and it be dry by the morning. That way I only have to bring one set)
• Intimates:
  • 8x underwear, various Target brand (1 worn)
  • 1 underwire bra (worn)
  • 1 soft bralette
  • 3x Icebreaker wool socks (love these) (1 worn)
  • Target silk PJ set (packs very small and light)
• Shoes:
  • Black pointed-toe Rothys (I just got these and I like how thin and light they are)
  • Old navy flip flops (flip flops are a must when traveling in the South Pacific)
  • Vivobarefoot primus trail knit black sneakers (amazing onebag shoe!! super light and can be worn on travel days, to the gym, or on the trail) (worn)

Clothes and shoes - PJs, undergarments, and workout gear not included.

Tech

I have one small random bag I use as a tech pouch for the chargers. The rest goes in the laptop section of my backpack or my tote.

• Macbook Air
• Two iPhones (work and personal)
• Kindle
• Apple Airpods
• Canon DSLR (necessary for work) + accessories
• iPhone charger, mini-USB, Macbook charger
• Wall block w/plug converter

Toiletries

• Anko large PVC pencil case (these things are amazing! so durable and cheap. I wish I could find a link for you all):
  • See photo caption below
• Random small canvas pouch:
  • Hair ties
  • Bobby pins
  • Tweezers
  • Nail clippers
  • Mascara
  • Eyebrow pencil + sharpener
  • Lipstick
  • Concealer + small brush
  • Multi stick (used for blush)
  • Two-in-one hairbrush and comb (foldable)
  • Toothbrush (used for brushing back baby hairs when my hair is up)

​
Toiletries. Top row: toothpaste, bug spray, conditioner, hair gel, toothbrush. Second row: itch cream, deodorant (decanted), mouth guard and floss, contact solution. Third row: face wash, face sunscreen, and homemade dry shampoo all in 1oz eye dropper bottles from Amazon, day and night lotion in the blue contact case, vitamin c serum and prescription in the green and white case, random pills in an old ear plug case. Bottom row: small slivers of shampoo and body bars in the Matador flatpack soap container, extra set of contacts, contact lens case, razor.
Packed, with makeup case

Other

• Anko pencil case:
  • Passports
  • Pens
  • Foreign sims (in an old gum container)
  • Foreign currency (held with a paper clip)
  • Boarding passes (this size pencil case is the exactly perfect size to fit a standard boarding pass)
  • Entry slips / customs forms, as needed
• Anko pencil case:
  • 6 granola bars, tea bags, instant coffee (snacks are a must for travel in places with unpredictable food supply)
  • Fork and spoon
• Random Walmart wallet w/ cards, currency, coins
• Lifestraw water bottle (seriously a lifesaver and plastic saver when you are traveling someone the water is not potable)
• Glasses, prescription sunglasses, non-prescription sunglasses
• Small umbrella
• Small first aid kit
• Notebook
• Tissues
• 10 Lysol wipes
• 2-3 sheets of laundry detergent + Tide pen in a ziplock bag

Thoughts

Overall, I thought I packed really well! With my camera gear and water bottle in my tote, the backpack weighed 8.5kg, but no one tried to weigh my bag. If I had been doing domestic travel in Vanuatu, I would have to get that down to 7kg.
I was wishing for a warmer jacket or a sweater while on my two overnight transits, so I might try to bring a packable down jacket next time.
I need a new backpack. This one is killing my back!! If you have any recommendations, please drop them here or in my post here.
Does anyone know of a good container to decant toothpaste??
Any feedback on how I can lighten the load or any feedback at all is welcome. Thank you for reading!

Rising to the presidency under hotly contested circumstances by rallying the government to legally depose President Howard P. Lovecraft due to his infirmity, the first days of the Hayes presidency were far from smooth. Despite having held office for just 28 days, President Lovecraft and his inner group of supporters had spread their tendrils widely throughout the government, rushing quickly to appoint as many like-minded individuals as possible to positions of power within the government. Even after forcing the resignation of the whole Lilienthal clique the day before swearing his oath of office, President Hayes found himself preoccupied for weeks with comprehensively rooting out the Formicist movement from the federal government and finding enough of his own allies to fill in the many gaps left behind after the Formicist anthill had been scoured. Especially as the vast majority of the Formicists given positions of power in government had been white men, Hayes was particularly lauded for his appointment of substantially more women and people of color than any of his other predecessors. Perhaps nothing else more symbolized his commitment to equal rights than his choice to fill in the vacant office of Vice President, the widely celebrated union leader and Florida Senator Asa Philip Randolph.
Sensing more enemies lurking in the dark than just those in the Formicist movement, President Hayes was also quick to meet with Representative Samuel Dickstein, the longtime chair of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Feeling that their work had been neglected by the Dewey administration, Hayes worked with allies in Congress to ensure an appropriation of more resources to the Committee. The result was a reinvigoration of the White Scare that had followed the Cape Cod Invasion in the earlier decade, with high-profile hearings once again delving into the unsavory history of the DuPont chemical company and making new inroads into areas such as the film industry. Perhaps even more incendiary was Attorney General O. John Rogge’s string of prosecutions of figures implicated in Smedley D. Butler’s Business Plot allegations such as business executive Grayson M.P. Murphy and even former General James G. Harbord. Completing the circle was Secretary of Education George S. Counts, returned to his office after a brief interruption during the Lovecraft presidency, who initiated a nationwide endeavor for a standardized curriculum surrounding the history of Grantism designed to achieve a “social reconstruction” underscoring the “moral equality of man” and critical of societal institutions “inimical to the underlying principles of democracy.”
Once his position had been secured, Hayes hoped to spend the next years of his presidency agitating for the final realization of President Dewey’s Great Community and perhaps even to drive it into further adoption across all facets of American life and the economy. However, another issue would instead come to consume his presidency. Starting as all things do in the Balkans, the disintegration of the Triple Monarchy of Austria-Hungary-Croatia led to a European crisis after the Kingdom of Italy occupied territory claimed by the German Empire. With the pleas of the International Court of Justice falling on deaf ears, the conflict rapidly spiraled into continent-spanning war after successive escalations by the powers of Europe. Even the socialist Republic of Spain, which had professed neutrality as the war broke out was near-simultaneously consumed by a civil war mimicking the patterns of the wider European war. But it was not only Europe that was thrust into the flames of war, Asia too exploded into open conflict in the summer of 1938. After long-rising tensions finally reached a climax, the Japanese Empire launched an unsteady attack that rapidly transformed into a full-scale invasion of China replete with horrific war crimes and massacres of civilians.
Hayes’ position on foreign affairs was nothing if not clear, furiously denouncing the “military madness and tyranny” of the French-Italian Pact of Steel and particularly attacking their sponsorship of the Nationalist rebels in Spain as an assault on global socialism. Likewise, Hayes echoed the sentiments of the late President Bliss in denouncing Japan for “sowing the dragon’s teeth of militarism”. Yet President Hayes did not solely content himself with words, and made several bold moves to counter the threat he saw in international Integralism. After the sinking of two passenger liners carrying American civilians by French naval forces, Hayes successfully extracted an indemnity from the French government to compensate the victims and threatened to impose an embargo of ever-valuable coal and iron if further transgressions were made. Holding a strong affinity for the socialist government of Spain that was under siege by the Nationalist revolt, Hayes also openly fostered the formation of American volunteer units to fight on behalf of the Spanish government, though his efforts to send material aid failed at the hands of Solidarists and Federalist Reformists reluctant to provide such aid to a radically socialist government. However, such skepticism did not extend to the longtime American ally of China (perhaps in part thanks to deeply established commercial ties), prompting the authorization of arms and supply shipments to China through the British port of Guangzhou as well as substantial embargoes on the flow of the same going to Japan. In order to disarm the threat of large-scale strikes posed by longshoremen leader Harry Bridges and mine workers leader John L. Lewis, Hayes met with both and, using the panache of a former union man still extraordinarily popular with the rank and file, credibly threatened to get both of them voted out of their union presidencies if they did not cooperate and thus secured the free flow of goods out of Pacific harbors.
Of course, these issues of foreign affairs did not totally consume the domestic politics of the nation. In August of 1937, the Council of Censors published its first annual report on the operations of the government, producing a document harshly detailing millions of dollars that had been misspent or unaccounted for in federal appropriations and noted dozens upon dozens of instances of incompetent management among the civil service in the administration of the Great Community. Hoping to forge his own identity as the Speaker of the House even after his Formicist allies had been overthrown in the executive branch, Walter Rautenstrauch thus pushed the first substantial civil service reform bill in 50 years through the House of Representatives, designed to enact stringent requirements on newly created positions across the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, and the Interior. Although the bill passed through the Senate thanks in part to public pressure from the Council of Censors, it earned a controversial veto as President Hayes attacked it as an antidemocratic measure designed to lessen control of the people over the government. Economically, the country showed signs of recovery from the depths of unemployment seen earlier in the Depression, but this coincided with increasingly rampant inflation as prices began to skyrocket across a wide variety of goods in the market as well as an increasingly staggering national debt. Yet with the House of Representatives largely deadlocked and the Senate determined to preserve the Great Community, little change was made to the economic policies of the nation aside from the nationalization of the merchant marine after several Federalist Reformist Representatives under the leadership of Royal C. Johnson crossed the aisle on the basis of preventing war profiteering and ensuring national defense. Also notable was the long-awaited referendum on the future of the Congo, in which independence won by a large margin, though Hayes moved to push the future independence of the territory back by another ten years in light of the dangerous international situation.
But as Americans once again head to the polls, several new incidents have brought foreign affairs to the fore of the national election. Following the brutal Battle of Nanjing, the USS Asheville was sunk by Japanese aircraft during an evacuation mission of American nationals and many of the remaining survivors were strafed by gunfire in the open water, among a litany of other acts of violence and brutality perpetrated on American civilians. Furthermore, reports streaming into the country from China detailed crimes against humanity perpetrated on an unimaginable scale by the invading Japanese army. Meanwhile, the House Un-American Activities Committee shocked the nation by reopening the previously cold investigation into the Cape Cod Invasion, announcing that the State Department turned over new documents suggesting that Ulysses Grant III and other ringleaders of the attempted overthrow of the democratic government had had extended communications with the Italian foreign ministry, leading many tabloids to conclude that Mussolini had himself sponsored the effort to return the Grant dictatorship to America. Thus, while weighing these new developments against the myriad other considerations surrounding the ongoing wars abroad, the American people now must decide how to react. As President Hayes has put it while stumping for the Social Democratic Party, “shall we ignore the call of our homeland, of liberty-loving Spain, of outraged and devastated Belgium, of heroic Britain and China, of starving Croatia?”
Social Democrats
​
https://preview.redd.it/p5psghl4am2b1.png?width=337&format=png&auto=webp&s=30237b7e1df93820aca50e6793224cb5d65a69bc
On domestic issues, the Social Democratic Party is remarkable for the unity fostered by President Dewey and his Great Community. While there remains much debate on the extent of government control over the economy and the mechanics of how they should be transferred out of private control, virtually the whole of the Social Democratic Party agrees that the nationalization of monopolistic industries such as the electric power, natural gas, and utilities industries are the most immediate priorities for extending worker control over the economy and putting an end to exploitative practices by business. Although largely content with the current regime of large deficit spending, dovish monetary policy, and a hefty taxation scheme, Social Democrats have continued to press for expansions to the land value tax in particular as a means to raise additional revenue to address the national debt while combating the pernicious effects of land ownership. Additionally, thanks to the advocacy of President Frank J. Hayes following many other predecessors, the Social Democrats have mobilized in favor of a system of universal sickness insurance to continue the extension of the expansive social safety net implemented with President Dewey’s Great Community. Blaming the greed of private businesses for the recent uptick in inflation and claiming that they have used the economic recovery as an excuse to extort average workers, President Hayes and the Social Democratic Party have called for the implementation of price controls on basic necessities and essentials of life if the inflation continues. However, while broadly unified on the matter of domestic matters, the same cannot be said of foreign affairs, where there remains an acrimonious split in the party.
The Interventionists are those who broadly support the struggle of the Spanish Republic, the Chinese Republic, and the Anglo-German Grand Alliance against the Integralist powers of France, Italy, and Japan. Framing the ongoing world war as a struggle of the forces of liberty and labor against the military tyranny of the Integralist ideology, the interventionist Social Democrats believe that action must be taken against France, Italy, and Japan lest Integralism once again threaten the United States. To this end, the interventionists have wholeheartedly backed the theory that Mussolini’s Italy were the backers of the Cape Cod Invasion that sought to restore Grantist rule to America, and point to the little-disputed French and Italian support for Nationalist Spain as evidence. Thus, under the leadership of notables such as New Jersey Senator Upton Sinclair, Montana Senator Jerry J. O’Connell, and Minnesota Representative John Bernard, the interventionists have come to support the rearmament of the United States, the sending of arms and material aid to Spain and China in particular, and even the entry of the United States into the war if it proves necessary. Some interventionists, such as Californian Robert A. Heinlein, have even gone so far as to claim universal military training as a fundamentally socialist concept that could be incorporated into a wider scheme of national service. However, many of the Social Democratic interventionists remain uncomfortable with the idea of allying the nation with the authoritarian monarchy of the German Empire, especially due to its repression of left-wing elements, but see it a necessary and lesser evil due to the less expansionist and ideological tendencies of the Kaiser. Broadly speaking, the interventionists tend to be more moderate than their isolationist counterparts, supporting a more limited vision of worker control of the economy and social spending, though there remain some radicals deeply committed to the international preservation and spread of socialism.
The Isolationists meanwhile have harshly denounced international conflict as the “fruit of the perpetual economic warfare of capitalism” and insisted on the strict neutrality of the United States through the enforcement of an embargo on all belligerent powers with no further distinction to avoid sponsoring any type of warfare. Under the leadership of Connecticut Senator Devere Allen, New York Governor Norman Thomas, and Wisconsin Governor Daniel Hoan, the isolationists have attacked any efforts at the militarization of American society, believing that it will inherently lead to the oppression of the working class and return of dictatorship to the country. More than anything else, the isolationists have harshly denounced the thought of entering the war by alleging modern war to be inherently suicidal and causing an incalculable strain on the working class. Moreover, those within the isolationist camp have strongly questioned the underpinnings of the interventionist argument, arguing that Germany is as much of an enemy to the working class as the Integralists and questioning the commitment of Chiang Kai-Shek to any socialist ideals. Perhaps the most controversial position has come from civil rights activist W.E.B. DuBois, who has argued that an intervention against Japan would merely foster a return of European colonialism in Asia. However, with most of the Social Democratic isolationists having an affinity for pacifism, few are content with simply letting the world war play its course. Instead, the isolationists concur that the American government and the wider socialist movement must agitate for a general strike by workers of all the belligerent powers to bring an end to the war, and perhaps realize worldwide socialist revolution. In general, the isolationists skew more radical than the interventionists, often favoring the inflammatory Declaration of Principles authored by Devere Allen that supports wide-reaching nationalizations of much of the economy.
Solidarity
​
https://preview.redd.it/c001z7tmam2b1.png?width=599&format=png&auto=webp&s=20542930aae80c50c884622316fd26056502465f
While Solidarity has long held members of both conservative and progressive stripes, the differences between them has become largely diminutive in the face of the sweeping leftward march of President Dewey’s Great Community. Attacking the fiscal policies of the Social Democratic Party as reckless and irresponsible, Solidarity is unified in the demand for federal spending to be drastically cut as a countermeasure against explosive inflation of prices and to avert the looming possibility of a sovereign debt crisis. Moreover, Solidarity argues that the overly expansive size of the federal government under the Social Democratic administrations has lent itself to the rise of governmental corruption and labor racketeering, and thus has come to largely favor civil service reform. Still cognizant of the risk of a return to economic crisis, Solidarity remains supportive of a dovish monetary policy designed to expand the money supply and thereby avoid a slip back into the deflation of the Great Depression, and many of its progressive members favor reasonable antitrust measures and other regulations to prevent the exploitative industry practices. Although the distinction has been encroached upon the Social Democratic Party under Presidents Dewey and Hayes, Solidarity also has a reputation as the strongest defender of civil rights in American politics, with many of its populations favoring greater action to end discrimination in private business and ensure the equality of African Americans and women in American life. Much like their Social Democratic peers, Solidarity has also been beset by a growing rift between two camps of thought on foreign affairs ever since the dream of international arbitration died alongside its champion former President George Foster Peabody in the midst of a world war.
The Interventionists are those that support the struggle of China against the invasion by the Japanese Empire and the Anglo-German Grand Alliance against the invasions by France and Italy. Believing the Integralist powers to be aggressors impossible to reason with who have destroyed the world peace so painfully architected by their party two decades ago, figures such as Connecticut Governor Raymond E. Baldwin, House Leader Charles Phelps Taft II, and former presidential nominee Wendell Willkie see little alternative but to take drastic action to preserve the world order. The interventionists, feeling an affinity towards the democracy of the United Kingdom, have also been quick to frame the conflict as one between the democratic way of life and the aggressive authoritarianism of the Integralist ideology. Thus, they favor a measured rearmament plan to prepare the United States for an eventual conflict, as well as policies designed to contain the war-making abilities of France, Italy, and Japan. Although some hold a distant hope for being able to arbitrate this world war in much the same way as the last, most of the interventionists have become convinced that an American intervention into the war, particularly in Europe, will be necessary to avoid world domination by aggressive Integralist powers antithetical the civil liberties and democratic values which Solidarity has cherished since its foundation. While expressing some hesitancy to the idea of intervening on behalf of the German Empire after its recent dissolution of the Reichstag, the interventionists have a greater faith in the German commitment to the restoration of the Hague system of international affairs and believe that they may be able to pressure for the reintroduction of democratic government in the country. Unlike the Social Democrats, the Solidarist interventionists are skeptical of the socialist Spanish Republic and largely reluctant to commit to supporting it. On the whole, the interventionists tend to be more progressive than their isolationist colleagues, favoring a greater degree of regulation in the economy and more willing to compromise with the Social Democrats to preserve the Great Community.
The Isolationists instead believe that the collapse of the Hague system is the ultimate proof that the United States should turn inwards and avoid foreign entanglements. Rejecting the idea that America is responsible for the preservation of democracy abroad, the isolationists believe that the interventionists are merely intent on drawing the country into a bloody and expensive war that may well invite the very tyranny they claim to be opposing. Instead, as typified by leaders such as Michigan Representative Arthur H. Vandenberg, Ohio Representative Robert A. Taft, and Florida Representative Zora Neale Hurston, isolationists instead support a strict program of embargo on all belligerent powers designed to show no favoritism to either party and ensure that further incidents such as the sinkings of the USS Asheville or the SS Scharnhorst are avoided. Thus, they argue, the country would be able to avoid being drawn into the war and focus on maintaining its prosperity and addressing its many domestic issues. Moreover, they believe that if the United States is able to steer clear of the raging international conflict, it might naturally emerge in a dominant international position after the war has run its course. The isolationists also distrust broad rearmament programs, believing that wantonly strengthening the peacetime military could result in a return of Grantism and military dictatorship in the country. The isolationists tend to be largely conservative, taking a harder line against government spending and believing in a restrained role of government in regulating the economy.
Federalist Reform
​
https://preview.redd.it/fioi3a40bm2b1.png?width=505&format=png&auto=webp&s=2d512790aaf7f523f06a4c1004b9d9e5cffc69cd
Broadly dominated by its New Nationalist wing, the domestic platform of the Federalist Reform Party remains largely centered around the ideas pioneered by its thought leader Charles Edward Merriam though there remain some more conservative skeptics. Although much like Solidarity the party sees the deficit spending of the Social Democratic Party as fiscally irresponsible and philosophically disagree with the nationalization of industry, the Federalist Reform Party holds a markedly different view on the relationship between the government and the economy. United around a belief in the need for a strong executive to successfully regulate the economy and push forward their governmental initiatives, the Federalist Reform Party supports cooperation between government planning experts and the private sector to avert cutthroat competition, direct the economy towards more profitable investments, and regulate the excesses and failures of the market economy. They also support a more limited program of public works spending to help stimulate the economy under the framework of a balanced budget. Blaming President Dewey’s removal of the country from the gold standard for the recent inflation, the Federalist Reform Party has called for more hawkish monetary policies if not an outright return to the gold standard to help control inflation in conjunction with a balanced budget. Hoping to strike a middle ground between a respect for labor and controls against radical leftism, the Federalist Reform Party generally favors the maintenance of many current union protections while also calling for a criminal syndicalism law that would outlaw the advocacy of the use of violence to effect political or economic change. Yet perhaps one of the party’s most defining traits is its stringent denunciation of corruption in government, calling for it to be comprehensively rooted out through civil service reform and anti-corruption efforts while blaming the Social Democrats for fostering the growth of graft and crime from within the government. Unsurprisingly, the Federalist Reform Party has also become bifurcated along the lines of interventionism and isolationism in the face of the global war.
The Interventionists of the party see it as in the nation’s best interests to intervene in the world war on behalf of the Anglo-German Grand Alliance and the Chinese Republic. Displaying a more coldly practical perspective, the interventionists, led by figures such as House Leader Harry Hopkins, former Senator Harold L. Ickes, and newer faces such as W. Averell Harriman have noted that the deep commercial and financial ties between the United States and the United Kingdom, Germany, and China leave it little choice but to intervene in the conflict. Moreover, they argue that if France, Italy, and especially Japan are left to succeed in the world war, they will surely pose a direct military threat that America will sooner or later be compelled to confront. Instead, they believe that the United States should intervene sooner rather than later to ensure that it can better project its influence in whatever new order may result after the end of the war, and have particularly taken aim at the threat posed by Imperial Japan with its formidable navy. Although holding few of the reservations that the other parties do about committing to open war, the interventionists agree that the country is woefully underprepared for an international war after years of military neglect by the previous presidential administrations. Thus, they have pragmatically suggested that the country rely on providing material aid to its future allies while embargoing its anticipated enemies and embarking on an ambitious rearmament program. The cornerstone of such a rearmament program would be the implementation of universal military training compelling all young men into a period of military service in preparation for an eventual war, a program which they hope to maintain in the long term due to other claimed benefits such as the installation of a spirit of discipline and nationalism. Having a certain affinity for more authoritarian government, the Federalist Reformist interventionists have not shied away from aligning with the German Empire, but have been rather critical of the alleged corruption of Chiang Kai-Shek’s China and have ruled out entirely the idea of intervening on behalf of radical socialism in Spain.
The Isolationists of the party, largely ruled by Chicago Tribune publisher Robert R. McCormick but also supported by Congressional figures such as Hamilton Fish III, have argued that America has nothing to fear from the global war should it pursue a prudent policy of national defense. Much like the isolationists in the other parties, they have largely called for an embargo on all belligerent powers to avoid offending any particular side or otherwise drawing the country into the war. Yet much unlike the other isolationists, they have nonetheless strongly supported a national program of rearmament and universal military training under a policy of armed neutrality to guarantee the nation’s security and safety from foreign threats. This, they argue, is the best course to ensure that the country is not attacked or otherwise forced into the war. Disagreeing with the assessment of their other Federalist Reformist peers, the isolationists argue that the United States has nothing to fear from any foreign power due to its naturally defensible position with oceans separating it from any dangers. Likewise, they argue that commercial bonds can easily be reforged either with fellow neutral nations or with the victorious powers. On the whole, many of the isolationists are also conservative skeptics of the New Nationalist movement who favor less government intervention in the economy and blame overly powerful unions for the nation’s economic woes. While the political scene has become rife with fiery condemnations for opposing opinions on foreign affairs, the Federalist Reformist isolationists have acquired a more unsavory reputation than their counterparts in other parties. Still lurking within the party are those remaining hardliners and outright Grantists who openly sympathize with the Integralists and have pragmatically backed the isolationist position in the hopes that France, Italy, and Japan can continue to press their advantageous position to victory. With figures ranging from radio priest Charles Coughlin to former Georgia Senator Eugene Talmadge, their political views range from populism bordering on the Social Democratic platform to archconservatism, but they remain united by their admiration for Integralists such as Mussolini and their stringent isolationism.
View Poll

I think I should remove the one with the water in it bc I think that makes it less liminal