Capto Iugulum

[spryllino]

Originally Posted by Crezth

Then it still does not address the following point:

"Do not skirt around the issue. If the GEL is not allied with you and Russia attacked them, annexed them, and murdered all of the inhabitants [of the GEL nations], would you or would you not allow them to do so - except, perhaps, for a token irrelevant denunciation? You have already answered in the affirmative so you need not respond directly, but it is nice to know that you care only about peace so long as the nations of Europe pledge allegiance to you."

One you elected to respond to with a discussion on semantics.

Because you were trying to use our words against us and twist them into meaning something we never said, and it was therefore incumbent upon us to refute you.

We have bolded the relevant phrase. Please speak to it directly. This is what we mean when we say you require the nations of Europe to follow you or else you will be complicit in their possible demise.

We see no reason why we should make promises on the subject when they are quite unwilling to do the same for us with regard to any enmities we may incur. Alliances are supposed to be reciprocal, and it is hardly reasonable for you to expect us to give you a one-sided commitment on the matter. In the event of a war occurring wherein our alliance with Russia is not invoked, i.e. a case of Russian aggression, and where we had no alliance with the Germans, our policy would depend on a number of factors. Provided German antagonism towards us was not too severe before then, it is entirely possible that we might find it necessary to defend them, but quite possible that we might remain neutral.

The bumbling babbling of your diplomats does not constitute a sufficient refutation that you are quite tolerant of Russia's policies of ethnic cleansing, or at least are tolerant enough to fight by their side should it come to it.

We wonder if Franco-Burgundy is truly as non-partisan as they say, or if they have an ulterior agenda here.

We are not quite sure what our ulterior agenda is meant to be, apart from the obvious fact that we desire to maintain peace in Europe, to maintain the balance of power, and to avoid any unwelcome British intervention in Europe closeted under the pretence of justice.

[Crezth]

Originally Posted by The Confederation

Because you were trying to use our words against us and twist them into meaning something we never said.

We see no reason why we should make promises on the subject when they are quite unwilling to do the same for us with regard to any enmities we may incur. Alliances are supposed to be reciprocal, and it is hardly reasonable for you to expect us to give you a one-sided commitment on the matter.

Please, answer the question. If you don't answer, we will be forced to assume you lack the wherewithal to do anything about Russian policies of mass murder and expansionism, and thus are, if not complicit in their actions, incapable of doing anything about them. And that's a shame considering that you style yourselves the beacon of light for Western Europe.

We are not quite sure what our ulterior agenda is meant to be, apart from the obvious fact that we desire to maintain peace in Europe, to maintain the balance of power, and to avoid any unwelcome British intervention in Europe closeted under the pretence of justice.

Britain has yet to threaten intervention in Europe, except on the condition that Russia wages a war of aggression against any of her neighbors. But that Franco-Burgundy cares more about Britain's relationships with the various powers of Europe than Russia's policies of mass murder we think speaks volumes to Franco-Burgundy's commitment to peace. You don't care for peace at all, do you? You only care about peace so long as Britain stays out. You'd sign an alliance with the GEL and shatter your alliance with Russia if it meant Britain was also shut out, wouldn't you?

[spryllino]

Originally Posted by Crezth

Please, answer the question. If you don't answer, we will be forced to assume you lack the wherewithal to do anything about Russian policies of mass murder and expansionism, and thus are, if not complicit in their actions, incapable of doing anything about them. And that's a shame considering that you style yourselves the beacon of light for Western Europe.

The response is conditional. If Russia directly attacked the GEL without reasonable provocation, and if the GEL and their allies had theretofore behaved towards us (as they have largely so far done) without unreasonable antagonism and without unreasonably threatening behaviour, then it is likely that we would judge Russia an aggressor and a gratuitous breaker of the European peace. If we did find Russia to be gratuitously breaking the European peace - unlikely given that Russia has already expressed their disinclination to strike the first blow - we would cancel our alliance with Russia and probably intervene to restore the situation in cooperation with the GEL, although we might demand that the war only be pursued so far and we would likely be in favour of an early peace.

This is all very hypothetical, however, and since we see no reason to believe that Russia is not less willing than you to strike the first blow, then we will stand by our alliance.

Britain has yet to threaten intervention in Europe, except on the condition that Russia wages a war of aggression against any of her neighbors. But that Franco-Burgundy cares more about Britain's relationships with the various powers of Europe than Russia's policies of mass murder we think speaks volumes to Franco-Burgundy's commitment to peace. You don't care for peace at all, do you? You only care about peace so long as Britain stays out. You'd sign an alliance with the GEL and shatter your alliance with Russia if it meant Britain was also shut out, wouldn't you?

If Britain stays in and believes that they are a good agency for maintaining the peace in Europe, and if the GEL wishes to cooperate with them, this is none of our business and it does not offend us beyond reason. The GEL can sign alliances with whomsoever they want. We do not feel confident that Britain is any more or less reluctant to involve Europe in a war than Russia is, and we do not desire to give Britain encouragement or a carte blanche to carry out whatever European plans they desire. We would only ever be "allied by proxy" or allied directly with Britain on very stringent terms which we do not care to propose, although we are always open to offers. We will not by any means act in a fashion that lessens our ability to act as a deterrent to any military action in Europe that is contrary to the interests of the Confederation or contrary to the general peace, and we not act in any fashion that makes it likely that we will oblige ourselves to aggressively attack our Russian allies - although we have repeatedly said that we are willing to sign a defensive alliance with Austria, and thereby with the GEL, on reasonable terms if such can be made available to us.

We still cannot see, however, that you have demonstrated any sort of concealed or clandestine ulterior motive.

[Crezth]

If the Confederation wanted to work with Britain to pursue everlasting peace in Europe, we are more than willing to hear your offer. As we have said since the beginning of these talks, our issue is with Russia.

[spryllino]

We do not have a particular offer as we have no particular desire to break an alliance for the sake of allying ourselves with another power whose motives we question equally, but if you wish to send us a reasonable and accommodating basis for a proposal, then we will give it all due consideration and, if it is basically creditable, make a counter-proposal. It is you who has been trying to insist that we change our policy all along, not vice versa, and we feel that our current policy is not a bad one. If you desire us to change it, you must give us reasons to, and any moral reasons must accord with our moral purposes.

If you wish to continue to attempt to suborn us from Russia's alliance, we ask that you do so in private.

[<nuke>]

Redacted

[spryllino]

Similarly redacted.

[Lord of Elves]

From: Workers Commonwealth
To: League of Continental Nations
CC: Any Other Concerned Parties
Needless to say, the Workers Commonwealth has little appreciation for our complete exclusion from international discussion as to our position in the League of Continental Nations and our state's legitimacy. Our intention towards free and democratic elections to determine the guiding of the Revolution of the Proletariat in Scandinavia, and our plans for reconciliation with the Empire, should be more than enough to prove that we are a legitimate state that can be dealt with diplomatically, rather than spoken of like an embarrassing bastard child behind closed doors. We continue to be grateful for the determination of many European nations to respect the territorial integrity of both the Workers Commonwealth at home and the Kongo Society in the colonies, but not for omitting our word and opinion from discussions dealing with the welfare of the Scandinavian nation.

[ZeletDude]

An announcement from The Dutch Cooperation Organization... To the world

The Republic of The Netherlands and The Commonwealth of Flanders expresses deep discontent towards how the The Franco-Burgundian Confederation is dealing with the Russians following their ruthless slaughtering of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. The Franco-Burgundian Confederation's continued dedication to their Russian alliance has forced the Dutch Cooperation Organization to make a change in its foreign policy. We will now only cooperate with nations that we know are dedicated to true peace in Europe, not just peace at gunpoint.

[m.t.cicero]

Flanders confirms.

[Muurya]

OOC: Thank you for your encouragements m.t. cicero and Crezth! After taking a break for almost a week I've decided I can handle this if I just keep it minimalist.


To: The United Kingdom
From: Occitania

We thank you for your understanding.

Originally Posted by Grandkhan

To: the Nations of the World
CC: Occitania
From: Spain

Spain wishes to announce that it is officially guaranteeing Occitania's independence, and will take action against any hostile move against the nation.

To: Spain
CC: Your guarantee of our independence
From: Occitania

Our deepest gratitude is yours. May your house always remain strong that we may rest under its shade.


To: the Nations of the World
CC: The Confederation's Defensive Alliance with Russia, the politicizing of the Olympic Games
From: Occitania

While Occitania disapproves of the Confederation's mutual pact of protection with Russia we find the constant politization of the Olympic Games to be overzealous and wearying at best and political profiteering at worst. Brazil's act of banning Russia was commendable of course, and the later decision to restrict this to just the officials was merciful, perhaps too gracious an act for that nation, but why has almost the entiriety of the European continent (and by extension Africa and large parts of Asia) been temporarily expelled from the games at some point despite having been well advanced in the motion to expell Russia from the League, while Japan's rapid rapproachment with the Tsar has gone unnoticed? While some understanding must be made for Oriental culture and the geographical disinterest of the Japanese in the fate of the Prussians we believe they've been ignored because they were our allies during the great war, or perhaps their dialogue with Russia was genuinly forgotten in the haste to condemn a European organization founded in part by the Allies' wartime enemies. Occitania is no longer a member of the League, but we will not stand for the utter vilification and discrimination of the majority of our neighbors, of whom the greater part voted vehemently in favor of expelling Russia and of whom the remainder all but Russia's satellite states voted for punishment of some sort.
To paraphrase the host (defending the politization of the games much earlier on) 'the selection itself was political', but that is not the way it should be.

[Crezth]

To: Occitania
From: The United Kingdom

What are you on about? The ban is essentially only effective for nations which have yet to distance themselves from Russia - so far, Franco-Burgundy and Denmark.

[spryllino]

What's Denmark done?

As for the Flemish-Dutch declaration, they are entitled to their opinion and we in no wise think the worse of them for it.

[m.t.cicero]

To: the Franco-Burgundian Confederation
From: the Commonwealth of Flanders

The European consensus, the peace that both your nation and our own have yearned for, is almost at hand. The Confederation is on the wrong side in this case, however. What we see as a misdirected sense of honor has kept you from joining the other free nations of Europe in opposing, in absolute terms Russia's actions. Your alliance with Russia is, in our eyes, destabilizing Europe, as it gives Russia the ability to act with a certain level of impunity. We urge you to join the rest of Europe in opposing Russia so that we may have the true peace which we have declared our commitment to through our membership in the League of Continental Nations.

[TheLastJacobite]

To Flanders
From Russia

We have done nothing to jeopardize the peace of Europe. What nation have we invaded since the end of the Great War? What banners have we rallies against the Germans or the British? What machinations have we developed to bring all of Europe to it's knees?

The answer to all these questions is the same: none.

No, instead we were thrown out of your League, conspired against and now the British are attempting to build a coalition to declare war on us and alienate and isolate us from the rest of the world. They mean to unleash war upon the Continent, not us.

We will stress again that we will not strike the first blow in any upcoming war, but we will most assuredly strike the last.

[Lord_Iggy]

To: Russia
From: Vinland

I personally doubt that any coalition will declare an offensive war against Russia. What they will do, however, is ensure that further Russian expansion is checked by other nations from around the world.

[Circuit]

To: Europe
From: United States of America

The Russians are lying. Remember this communique in regards to the Scandinavian question:

Originally Posted by TheLastJacobite

To UK, US, Brazil, Vinland
From Russia

We support Emperor Harold fully. If he chooses to resolve the matter peacefully, we honor that decision. If, on the other hand, he asks for our aid in reclaiming the throne his family has held for decades, we will gladly come to his aid. In that regard, we care little what the world thinks. He and his family are our oldest allies and we will help them in whatever way they need it, always and without question. Should that be the case, any nation supporting the Proletarist scum or hindering the Emperor returning to his homeland will be in a state of war with Russia

OOC: Anyone doubting the sheer joy I would take from that war need only look at the two words right below my user name

[spryllino]

Originally Posted by m.t.cicero

To: the Franco-Burgundian Confederation
From: the Commonwealth of Flanders

The European consensus, the peace that both your nation and our own have yearned for, is almost at hand. The Confederation is on the wrong side in this case, however. What we see as a misdirected sense of honor has kept you from joining the other free nations of Europe in opposing, in absolute terms Russia's actions. Your alliance with Russia is, in our eyes, destabilizing Europe, as it gives Russia the ability to act with a certain level of impunity. We urge you to join the rest of Europe in opposing Russia so that we may have the true peace which we have declared our commitment to through our membership in the League of Continental Nations.

You are quite mistaken. A European consensus is no consensus if it excludes Russia: the European consensus is by its nature broken already, and a European consensus that tries to include Britain will never be a true consensus, as long as Britain maintains in principle its interventionism on the continent and its backing of Brazil's absurd actions, both of which you merely deceive yourself if you do not see as serious obstacles to a consensus. In any case, a consensus on a single point is not some sort of panacea for Europe's ills: a wide-based consensus on multiple issues is the aim, and if we merely create an artificial consensus by directing Europe's whole capacity for hatred and ire at Russia it will get us nowhere except blinding us to all other threats and wrongs dealth out by other nations - which, although not so very severe as Russia's, should not be ignored in the name of an artificial consensus. We look forward to a day when true consensus may be found and policy may be decided on my agreement, and not by British coercion - which unfortunately is not now, because Russia and Britain's policies preclude such consensus.

Furthermore, our alliance gives Russia not impunity, but less impunity as it gives us something to threaten them with; we have given the world our word that we do not support Russia in cases of Russian aggression, and so our alliance with Russia makes it likely that Russia will not attack anyone, but will rather wait until such a point as Britain decides to make its move and act aggressively itself: and by this sort of waiting, it is highly likely that there will be no war as long as diplomatic circumstances remain as they are. If we leave Russia, what end is there in sight but that there will be a war as soon as Russia displays a momentary weakness? or as soon as Russia refuses to pay 150EP reparations to Azerbaijan that were demanded for no very good reason? Our position is to resist aggression as we see it: that position is the one that is truly the right way to urge the balance of power and to maintain the continuation of peace in Europe. As long as the Confederation stands, anyone who breaks the Continental peace will suffer for it, and thus we will not commit ourselves to a stance of opposition to Russia unless to do so secures the European peace even more solidly, which, as far as we can see, it does not. If we abandoned our Russian alliance, we would have to take a stance that lessened our ability to prevent the outbreak of a devastating war across all Europe, and we will not lessen our ability to prevent war in such a fashion.

Look at the likely practical consequences of us abandoning our Russian alliance and allying ourselves on meagre terms with the Germans. In your hearts, tell us, would they be good? Of course not; we would be clearing the way not for peace, but for the British and Germans to do precisely what they like.

As we said before, you are entitled to your opinion and we look on it warmly as the advice of a friend, but we do not share it.

--------

The Scandinavia matter is a key example of the above policy - in the shape of our role in bringing about the Brazzaville Accords - achieving very considerable and practical success, and we look forward to similar successes in future turns. We will certainly not flinch from acting in an unpopular manner if it saves thousands of lives in this fashion.

[Crezth]

Originally Posted by Lord_Iggy

To: Russia
From: Vinland

I personally doubt that any coalition will declare an offensive war against Russia. What they will do, however, is ensure that further Russian expansion is checked by other nations from around the world.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by spryllino

You are quite mistaken. A European consensus is no consensus if it excludes Russia: the European consensus is by its nature broken already, and a European consensus that tries to include Britain will never be a true consensus, as long as Britain maintains in principle its interventionism on the continent and its backing of Brazil's absurd actions, both of which you merely deceive yourself if you do not see as serious obstacles to a consensus. In any case, a consensus on a single point is not some sort of panacea for Europe's ills: a wide-based consensus on multiple issues is the aim, and if we merely create an artificial consensus by directing Europe's whole capacity for hatred and ire at Russia it will get us nowhere except blinding us to all other threats and wrongs dealth out by other nations - which, although not so very severe as Russia's, should not be ignored in the name of an artificial consensus. We look forward to a day when true consensus may be found and policy may be decided on my agreement, and not by British coercion - which unfortunately is not now, because Russia and Britain's policies preclude such consensus.

tl;dr: European consensus is impossible without Russia or if it includes Britain. What was that the Confederation tried to assure us about the League not being an Anti-British League?

Your mandate is shattered. Europe won't fall for your lies any longer. We are proud of them for that, and we reiterate that our interests on the continent lie only in ensuring that Russia aggresses no longer. We shudder to think what would happen if they brought their Poland-Prussia policies to bear in Scandinavia under the auspices of a police action.

[spryllino]

Originally Posted by Crezth

Indeed.

tl;dr: European consensus is impossible without Russia or if it includes Britain. What was that the Confederation tried to assure us about the League not being an Anti-British League?

A consensus is nothing but the sum of its parts. If Britain or Russia acts in a fashion that precludes consensus - as Britain has done many times, and as Russia quite obviously did last year - then there is no consensus.

If there were a sound basis for a British-Continental consensus that was not solely based on ire at Russia (and we are waiting for you to provide one if you like), then of course Britain could be included in such a consensus.

Your mandate is shattered. Europe won't fall for your lies any longer. We are proud of them for that, and we reiterate that our interests on the continent lie only in ensuring that Russia aggresses no longer. We shudder to think what would happen if they brought their Poland-Prussia policies to bear in Scandinavia under the auspices of a police action.

We do not claim to have an international mandate: we claim to act in the interests of the continent, and we are doing just that.