[PON] Conflict in Europe - Diplomacy & News Thread

[Soulstrider]

When France DOW germany for second time destroy all possibilities of a Franco-German Friendship, France lost and is time to pay for his mistakes.

Belgium change too fast his loyalties, it is a too opportunistic behaviour.

Belgium didn't changed any loyalty or was opportunistic, we only acted honourably. We joined Germany, were defeated and them obeyed the terms of the surrender treaty, as simple as that.

[Ojodeaguila]

Belgium didn't changed any loyalty or was opportunistic, we only acted honourably. We joined Germany, were defeated and them obeyed the terms of the surrender treaty, as simple as that.

And now you give diplomatic support to France, is like Italy declaring his neutrality and later attacking all the allies of Germany, you can try to persuade us but it is difficult to not see your turncoat.

[Sir Garnet]

IMPERIO DO BRASIL

Even a treaty including reparations as well as the more customary demands for an African colony as trophy of war and a security measure in the immediate reduction of the present French standing army could be viewed as within a reasonable scope, and of more importance as not destructive enough of the balance of power to warrant a reaction, if not for the following German proposals:

That France abandon all passage, treaties, connections and assistance other than commercial relations with Belgium and Egypt for a period of 10 years, isolating them without any disclosure as to the intended fate of these nations, or provision for their future protection in a status that will actually promote the avowed German aim of security against attack. For example: a neutrality at least as to the French and German antagonists that is guaranteed both in favor of and enforced against the neutral country agreeing upon it.
That for 5 years from the signing of the treaty, France will refrain from inteference of any kind in German colonial policy, will restrain itself from opposing German foreign policy initiatives and German military goals.

Although this is intended to disable France from renewing the war on Germany and avoid situations of conflict, this together with the other demands can be seen in a most sinister light regarding Belgium, Egypt and other nations that might be the subject of such ominously unstated policies, initiatives, and goals.

I think it is haste that caused omission of a presentation of conditions specified in full and practical detail, and the nations that are raised in alarm as to these terms can agree and indeed assist in assuring by guarantee or otherwise terms that are calculated to prevent unprovoked attacks between these two countries without risking the balance of powers by constraining them in their other proper interests which admittedly might by indirect causes require them in honor to join others in a war which might find them on opposite sides. I would hope they might agree to advance mediation in any such case.

Broad non-aggression pacts prohibiting declaration of war without exceptions are dangerously destabilizing. History will show they provide a sense of safety for aggression by removing one potential defender from the lists. The NAP prohibiting initiation by either party is the best, for it does not limit response to attack on a third or more remote party. It is also the one most readily acceptable to potential guarantors.

On colonial policy, the Empire of Brazil believes the Kingdom of Portugal would wish to see a concert among the British, French and Germans protecting the borders and neutrality of that kingdom in European wars. There are others with an interest as well. This would bear discussion. This is particularly the case if Germany seeks territory in the French Congo.

These last terms are ominous and menace the balance of power and thus every other state. We do not believe this is the German intention, and do believe that the language can be resolved with deference to Germany's unique security interests as a power closely surrounded by other powers and with limited maneuvering room.

[Sir Garnet]

[quote="Sir Garnet"]IMPERIO DO BRASIL

Even a treaty including reparations as well as the more customary demands for an African colony as trophy of war and a security measure in the immediate reduction of the present French standing army could be viewed as within a reasonable scope, and of more importance as not destructive enough of the balance of power to warrant a reaction, if not for the following German proposals:

That France abandon all passage, treaties, connections and assistance other than commercial relations with Belgium and Egypt for a period of 10 years, isolating them without any disclosure as to the intended fate of these nations, or provision for their future protection in a status that will actually promote the avowed German aim of security against attack. For example: a neutrality at least as to the French and German antagonists that is guaranteed both in favor of and enforced against the neutral country agreeing upon it.
That for 5 years from the signing of the treaty, France will refrain from inteference of any kind in German colonial policy, will restrain itself from opposing German foreign policy initiatives and German military goals.

Although this is intended to disable France from renewing the war on Germany and avoid situations of conflict, this together with the other demands can be seen in a most sinister light regarding Belgium, Egypt and other nations that might be the subject of such ominously unstated policies, initiatives, and goals.

I think it is haste that caused omission of a presentation of conditions specified in full and practical detail, and the nations that are raised in alarm as to these terms can agree and indeed assist in assuring by guarantee or otherwise terms that are calculated to prevent unprovoked attacks between these two countries without risking the balance of powers by constraining them in their other proper interests which admittedly might by indirect causes require them in honor to join others in a war which might find them on opposite sides. I would hope they might agree to advance mediation in any such case.

Broad non-aggression pacts prohibiting declaration of war without exceptions are dangerously destabilizing. History will show they provide a sense of safety for aggression by removing one potential defender from the lists. The NAP prohibiting initiation by either party is the best, for it does not limit response to attack on a third or more remote party. It is also the one most readily acceptable to potential guarantors.

On colonial policy, the Empire of Brazil believes the Kingdom of Portugal would wish to see a concert among the British, French and Germans protecting the borders and neutrality of that kingdom in European wars. There are others with an interest as well. This would bear discussion. This is particularly the case if Germany seeks territory in the French Congo.

These last terms are ominous and menace the balance of power and thus every other state. We do not believe this is the German intention, and do believe that the language can be resolved with deference to Germany's unique security interests as a power closely surrounded by other powers and with limited maneuvering room.

[Soulstrider]

And now you give diplomatic support to France, is like Italy declaring his neutrality and later attacking all the allies of Germany, you can try to persuade us but it is difficult to not see your turncoat.

What you are saying is utter nonsense first that example is too extreme to even apply to this situation, they have nothing to do with each other


And I tell you why what you are saying is nonsense:

1st: We are obliged to give diplomatic support to France by treaty, and until that treaty is cancelled by any reason we will keep giving, so this is enough to cut any betrayal nonsense.

2nd: France has been friendly to me after my defeat and I respect that.

3rd: We never did anything of free will to intentionally harm Germany or it's friends so I can't be a turncoat, even when Germany crossed my lands by mistake of mine I even gave them 3 turns to peacefully leave when I could have directly cut the access.
And after that I was even bullied with a threat of war when I didn't show anything but good will to Germany, if anyone was betrayed was me, who was forced to use delaying tactics to prevent an immediate invasion of my lands.

(OC: 4th: The passage rights should have been cancelled according to the treaty and it was mistake that ruined France, naturally I wish to atone for that as a player)

[bjfagan]

What you are saying is utter nonsense first that example is too extreme to even apply to this situation, they have nothing to do with each other


And I tell you why what you are saying is nonsense:

1st: We are obliged to give diplomatic support to France by treaty, and until that treaty is cancelled by any reason we will keep giving, so this is enough to cut any betrayal nonsense.

This is the same kind of diplomatic penalty that Germany is trying to reverse. So, France has set the precedent here that she claims does not exist.

2nd: France has been friendly to me after my defeat and I respect that.

Germany was too, but see #3.

3rd: We never did anything of free will to intentionally harm Germany or it's friends so I can't be a turncoat, even when Germany crossed my lands by mistake of mine I even gave them 3 turns to peacefully leave when I could have directly cut the access.
And after that I was even bullied with a threat of war when I didn't show anything but good will to Germany, if anyone was betrayed was me, who was forced to use delaying tactics to prevent an immediate invasion of my lands.

Obviously being very friendly and making promises of future help wasn't working, so Germany had to try the next option. Even so, Belgium lied by making demands that Germany agreed to, then did the exact opposite that Belgium said it would do. Basically, stabbing Germany in the back.

I find it funny that when Belgium suppossedly stabs France in the back by helping Germany, who was under attack from the French, the Americans and Italians jump all over the Belgians and help crush them very quickly, but when the Belgians stab Germany in the back, it goes unnoticed and condemnation rains down on Germany for trying to punish the Belgians for their transgressions.

(OC: 4th: The passage rights should have been cancelled according to the treaty and it was mistake that ruined France, naturally I wish to atone for that as a player)

No where in the harsh Treaty of Maubeuge does it state that.

[bjfagan]

Belgium didn't changed any loyalty or was opportunistic, we only acted honourably. We joined Germany, were defeated and them obeyed the terms of the surrender treaty, as simple as that.

So, France forces a harsh treaty on Belgium that strips Belgium of her treaties with Germany, but Germany doing the same thing to France, in regards to Belgium, is unprecedented?

[Soulstrider]

Obviously being very friendly and making promises of future help wasn't working, so Germany had to try the next option. Even so, Belgium lied by making demands that Germany agreed to, then did the exact opposite that Belgium said it would do. Basically, stabbing Germany in the back.

Pseudo IC/OC: The sole reason why I did that because you threatening to invade me, obviously I wouldn't want for you start forging a cb against me immediately so I was forced to resort to stalling tactics.
I will be honest the threat of war was what pushed me completely to France's side in this situation. It had exactly the opposite effect you wanted, since if you had played your cards right, I could potentially have sided with you and taken a prestige hit for having betrayed France.

But this irrelevant regarding the overall scenario, since the main reason why I did that was that I felt horribly by screwing France due to a mistake of mine when I surrendered. And I am now helping France since I still have a guilty conscience.

No where in the harsh Treaty of Maubeuge does it state that.

First Belgium didn't consider that treaty harsh at all, second I already showed the line where it says that. It may not state that word by word but we discussed what it mean and I won't let minor technicalities getting in the way of the spirit of the treaty.
All this mess shouldn't have happened if I had double checked, that why we had decided to let you evacuate your army peacefully so we could have resolved without any real issue.

So, France forces a harsh treaty on Belgium that strips Belgium of her treaties with Germany, but Germany doing the same thing to France, in regards to Belgium, is unprecedented?

I am ok with that but my treaty with France only required me to support them in the times of war and other crisis, I still had diplomatic independence to interact with Germany or any other country at will as long as they aren't in direct conflict with Germany, for example commercial agreements,crisis unrelated to France, etc...... Pretty much the only thing France was interested was in preventing Belgium from becoming what exactly happened in this war.

[bjfagan]

So then, the terms of surrender that France objects to are about the same as what France imposed on Belgium. I guess France does not like taking its own medicine. France will still be free to have commercial interests with Belgium, much like Beglium could have kept commercial interests with Germany.

No where in German communications did we ever threaten war against Belgium. The German Foreign Office did state that it wanted to avoid war and Belgium backstabbing Germany would create a desire among the German people and the Army to get revenge and pleaded with Belgium to not do anything that would create that uncontrollable situation. It is unfortunate if Belgian government officials somehow read into that a direct threat of war. In the end, Belgium did not listen to reason.

[Vezina]

OOC: Belgium asked for that term. It was not in France's initial demands.

[Soulstrider]

No where in German communications did we ever threaten war against Belgium. The German Foreign Office did state that it wanted to avoid war and Belgium backstabbing Germany would create a desire among the German people and the Army to get revenge and pleaded with Belgium to not do anything that would create that uncontrollable situation. It is unfortunate if Belgian government officials somehow read into that a direct threat of war. In the end, Belgium did not listen to reason.

To me it sounded pretty much " if you cancel the Passage we will have to force our way through. "

OOC: Belgium asked for that term. It was not in France's initial demands.

Indeed, that term came in the negotiations, better that than loose Luxembourg. France kindly accepted the change.

[bjfagan]

To me it sounded pretty much " if you cancel the Passage we will have to force our way through. "



Indeed, that term came in the negotiations, better that than loose Luxembourg. France kindly accepted the change.

France wanted Luxembourg?? Wow, that would have been a nice addition to Alsace-Lorraine. Now, I wonder who really is the land hungry warmongering nation afterall?

[Ojodeaguila]

Italy, a neutral nation, help France to destroy the Belgian armies in order to claim Luxemburg and now all claim that the Germans demands are too big, please

France ask for 1/3 of the Belgian national provinces

[Soulstrider]

That was a first proposition which was changed since France agreed it was way too much.

[Vezina]

France wanted Luxembourg?? Wow, that would have been a nice addition to Alsace-Lorraine. Now, I wonder who really is the land hungry warmongering nation afterall?

Not that I have to explain myself to you, but I was going to make Luxembourg independent. I had no interest in keeping it. However, I had no problem in altering it when Belgium made a counter-proposal.

Now, even with that being known, tell us how many national regions of other nations France owns and how many Germany owns or has owned. Actually - don't. Everyone besides you realizes what you said is hypocritical even if I did want Luxembourg.

[Ech Heftag]

Italy, a neutral nation, help France to destroy the Belgian armies in order to claim Luxemburg and now all claim that the Germans demands are too big, please

France ask for 1/3 of the Belgian national provinces

That's a blatant lie.

Italy has declared war on Belgium because Belgium had backstabbed both France and its former alliance. I had absolutely no knowledge about any plans France might have had for the future of Belgium, but given the rather hideous behavior of Belgium, it's more than understandable that he wanted to hurt Belgium a bit.

Furthermore, it was only natural to declare war on Belgium for me. I have been a long-time member of the LFN (like you, until you too decided to jump on the bandwagon and dow France for some quick territorial gains, which then backfired quite a bit) and the dow by Belgium presented a clear need for me to adhere to my defensive obligations with France.

[Ojodeaguila]

That's a blatant lie.

Italy has declared war on Belgium because Belgium had backstabbed both France and its former alliance. I had absolutely no knowledge about any plans France might have had for the future of Belgium, but given the rather hideous behavior of Belgium, it's more than understandable that he wanted to hurt Belgium a bit.

Furthermore, it was only natural to declare war on Belgium for me. I have been a long-time member of the LFN (like you, until you too decided to jump on the bandwagon and dow France for some quick territorial gains, which then backfired quite a bit) and the dow by Belgium presented a clear need for me to adhere to my defensive obligations with France.

Belgium join the Franco-German war like other nations before, for example Spain, and you only go to war with Belgium.

[De_Spinoza]

Victory in Manchuria
The Empress Dowager is overjoyed to make known to the world that the Manchurian campaign has progressed as planned. Currently a large Russian force is besieged in the fortress of Haishenwai (Vladivostok), while preparations are made for the siege of Port Arthur. We now call on the Russians to promptly return Manchuria to our Empire, lest their forces in Haishenwai will be stormed, causing more losses the the already severely battered Russian Army. Meanwhile the Glorious Imperial Banners are also pushing back small-scale Russian incursions in Mongolia and Xianjang province. Victory is near!

[Kensai]

OOC: what's the problem if France indeed wanted to incorporate Luxembourg? As far as I can tell from the possible (potential) objectives of that nation, Luxembourg can be in the list of F10 objectives, meaning claimable to be annexed. What puzzles me is what happens if that objective is another nation's capital as it can happen with Constantinople and the Russians (and potentially Greece, if we even implement the "Megali Idea" as template for further objectives). How can a nation function without a capital? Well, in that case we should probably run the scripted command to set another capital, so I guess it is all possible.

[lukasberger]

Major Austrian Defeat.

The long awaited Austrian offensive against Italy began last week, in inauspicious fashion.
An Austrian attack on Friuli and Venezia resulted in the complete destruction of the Army of Franz von John and the loss of 12 NM points. While the other Austrian troops have now taken military control of Venezia and and Friuli, it is to be noted that the Italians troops have not been greatly harmed by as strong an attack as Austria can deliver. Indeed Austria harmed only themselves. Thus debate rages within Vienna as to whether the decision to proceed with the Italian war was wise.

More details (screenshots) to follow...

[Jim-NC]

Britain's Colonial Ministry Press Statement:

It is with great pride that the city of Swellendam has been founded in the Dominion of Cape Colony in South Africa. The locals came out in force to see the wondrous new city that has been created. His majesty, the Prince of Wales was in attendance to the ceremonies. He is on a tour of the Empire's Dominions. He was met with joyous crowds wherever he went.

[Kensai]

Korean Peninsula, January 1875

SHINTO MISSIONARIES REPORT HOSTILITIES

The Empire of Japan worries about the hostilities coming into the Northern regions of Korea which Japan intensely invests on. We urge Russia and China to respect our assets and move their fight out of the area. A ravaged Korea would mean less income and incoming resources for Japanese traders. We are not involved in this war of yours, so please spare us of the financial losses amidst the global financial crisis of '74.

[Ech Heftag]

The battle at Isonzo

Austria had sweet-talked Italy into believing that its new administration would be open for a peaceful conclusion of the ongoing state of war, while using their time to rearm themselves after the horrendous losses suffered against the German alliance. Now, in early 1875, they have shown their true face, and once more proven to the world that Austria can only speak one language - the language of violence and blood.

However, the ever-vigilant watch of the Alpini in the ice-frozen and snow-covered Alpes had alerted the Italian troops in time, and with a determination not unlike the heroic valor of the Roman legionnaires of times ancient, the concentrated efforts and steadfast defense of the Italian armies inflicted major casualties to the Austrian armies trying to cross the river Isonzo at the Italian-Austrian border.

[unclejoe]

Rebellion in Herzogovinia Early Feb. 1875
Fortunately, troops returning from the Front were on hand to quell the disturbances. The taxes must be paid, of course. The Christian and Orthodox must pay their fair share. And those going to Montenegro and Serbia to escape paying taxes have only placed the gaze of the Ottoman on those regions.

The Ottoman Empire's contentment rating by an International ratings group is place at a very respectable 85%. The Sultan Says: Happiness is worth more than a few Coins. I am happy and most of my people are happy. We will not allow a few rebellions miscreants to disturb our Good Fortune. A National day of Smiling is in the planning stages to take place in a few weeks time.

[Lindi]

New of Suez

The Prussia always said for peace the Egypt need to give Suez to Prussia, but Suez territory is in own territory of Egypt, so if the Prussia not understand that, the only solution is kill to much men of Prussia!

Peace with acceptable condition is only solution for stop kill people! I have nothing, because Prussia are all destroy, so I can accepte to lose Suez, and my army is always up in Suez canal.

[ATTACH]22004[/ATTACH]

[Jim-NC]

Really weird Red event considering events:

[ATTACH]22005[/ATTACH]

Considering that Disraeli is not even my PM, and that Russia and the Ottomans are the best of friends, this event makes no sense at all.

[Kensai]

Well, yes, Disraeli is not on helm, but the events usually describe what happened in real life, the date and other details are not that important.

The scripted event might not make sense because of how Lukas played the Ottomans (erroneously in my opinion) back a few years ago in his confrontation with the Russians. One would have expected them to put up a valiant defense and challenge everything, instead the Turks gave up a large chunk of their country (Bulgaria) no questions asked. In this alternate reality (as in real life) the Ottomans should be burning in revenge to regain parts of their empire lost to the European powers that had entered the area making alliances of fortune.

Bulgarian territories still need to be fixed so they will revolt more or less after 1878 if the Russians do not allow its independence. The TUR is a difficult country to play (prolly more than Japan) because of geopolitical reasons. But a player's first and probably only prerogative is how to keep this thing together while countering all internal revolutions and external annexations. Not all can be saved but much.

Unfortunately many of the initial problems of Turkey started because of glennbob's blatantly unhistorical (to the point of ridiculous) "crusade" against TUR for almost 5 years. Britain was supposed to counterbalance RUS in that area, not fight TUR outright!

[Sir Garnet]

IMPERIO DO BRASIL


FOR A NEUTRAL SUEZ
Which powers will subscribe to the idea of a neutrally-administered Suez Canal, and which will provide a military guarantee in a coalition solely for such purpose of securing neutral navigation? (This may require scripting passage rights if that is what proves to be the obstacle to transiting the canal, which should by design be open to all unless closed entirely or maybe if the other party is at war with the owner.)

BELGIAN NEUTRALITY AND GUARANTEES OF SECURITY ON THE RHINE
Belgium is both a natural battleground and with its own means to field a strong army that can tip the balance in a war in the zone of conflict around its frontiers that has existed and seen repeated wars for centuries, but it alone cannot withstand those of either of its two large neighbors. The Belgians have experienced extreme pressure from several directions to which they yielded, but the loss of their army and occupation of their territory was the result. Both the Germans and French have experienced disappointments as a result. If Belgian intends to return to its original neutrality, t would be a benefit to the security of Belgium as well as France and Germany to be assured of that neutrality. Neither great power will have much comfort unless the neutral stance is secured by arms beyond their own, so it will be necessary for other great powers to guarantee it against both France and Germany.

This neutrality would remove the need for the objectionable German treaty terms removing France as a potential countervailing force in any German actions for the treaty period. German security interests and French in the Rhine conflict zone can be met by a guarantee of Belgium in part and by a further treaty restraining both parties from crossing borders in the zone which itself is guaranteed by third party great powers and may be seconded by secondary powers (and thirded, if that is possible, by third-tier powers). It would also be agreed that the status quo of Alsace Lorraine is agreed as fixed and guaranteed for 5 years, that being the most relevant period from the treaty proposals. Although it is a difficult thing to bind oneself to make war on an ally or a friend, security would require that the respective allies of France and Germany subscribe along with France and Germany to make war against the trespasser.

Comments and commitments on this matter are solicited in order that a coalition may be formed for this purpose.

[unclejoe]

The clash with the Rebels saw them routed.... the miscreants have been taken prisoner, all is well. The taxes must be paid.
Congratulations to the noble commander and troops!

[nemethand]