Capto Iugulum

[TheLastJacobite]

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.

To Vinland
CC: World
From Russia

And what expansion, we ask again, would that be? Our goal was to unite all Russians under a single nation, which we have accomplished. We have no need or desire to rule over any other ethnic groups, up to but not limited to, Germans, Romans, Azerbaijani, Hungarians, Serbs, Bulgars, Finns, Scandinavians, Persians, Chinese, Romanians, Kurds, Indians, Tibetans, and/or Japanese. We believe that covers every nation we border.

We have taken no aggressive actions since the Great War ended. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, continues to agitate and align nation against the imaginary threat we pose to the outside world. We will state again. We were one of the last nations to declare war in the Great War, and then only in aid of our allies. We even offered peace to the British and the Krakow Pact after the Treaty of Madrid was made public and we had made only modest gains.

They spit in our face and told us they would put our people to the sword. And when we persevered over their attempts to exterminate us, suddenly it is Russia who precipitated the entire conflict! It was the high and mighty United Kingdom that placed over 100,000 troops upon our border, it was the Georgians who expelled our citizens and it was the Brazilians who started the entire war by releasing their ridiculous ultimatum to Spain. Russia merely reacted to the situation around us in such a manner to ensure it never happens again.

We will stress once more. We made ourselves very clear in what would happen in Prussia. As you have all been so quick to state, a multitude of nations sent ships to ferry away the Prussians. Brandenburg, Austria and Hungary opened their borders to any and all Prussians wishing to leave. Despite this, hundreds of thousands of them chose to stay and fight. At point they ceased to be helpless innocents and became rebels against the United Russian Empire. And we will do to rebels as we see fit. We do not question the United States for how it deals with the so called American Underground, their African population or the Aztec guerrillas despite use of tactics far more draconian than our own. We do not criticize the United Kingdom for the heavy handed suppression of uprisings in Indochina or India. We do not bring up the slaughter of the indigenous population of natives in Vinland. No, we feel that how a nation handles armed resistance to its rule is its own damn business.

As always, any nation willing to attempt to change our position on this matter by force is more than welcome to do so. We would point out that every nation that had attempted to impose its will upon Russia thus far has been defeated.

 

[spryllino]

What has Britain done that has precluded consensus, other than opposed a tyrannical, murderous regime?

We aren't prepared, as Flanders apparently is, to deceive ourselves into thinking that any consensus on that issue would be the same as an overwhelming consensus of interest and motive. We can't be expected to have consensus with you if that means putting up with willy-nilly intervention in Continental Europe without the agreement of the powers thereof, warmongering policy towards Russia, backing every random demand that Brazil makes against a European nation, making threats against nations we have sworn to protect (or anything similar), making threats against ourselves, and gratuitous overinterpretation or plain misinterpretation of the Treaty of the Tuileries or any other document we or you may be bound by. Only if you can actually find for us some sort of reasonable coincidence of policy will we have a consensus with you.

So we are to tolerate Russia's regime and policies of mass murder if we wish to work with the Confederation and the continent?

Well, you are to adopt a general policy of moderation and compromise on terms acceptable to whatever nations you wish to work with. This is a truism: if you want a consensus, or even an agreement on any point, with anyone, then it is always necessary to have some sort of coincidence of demonstrable wishes, interests, or purposes.

By kowtowing to a regime hell-bent on securing its power through aggression and mass killings? A very fine job you are doing, acting in the "interests of the continent." We think you should listen to the Continent whose interests you claim to represent.

An even finer job you are doing at bringing Europe under your thumb, at trying to coerce us into coming under your influence on no terms, and at bringing about a Greater War than any we have seen, were we not there to stop you.

 

[m.t.cicero]

Our goal was to unite all Russians under a single nation

Why, then, was Poland annexed entirely? There were no Russians in Danzig, in Warsaw or in Krakow. This action was clearly just a move to gain resources and power, and Europe has no reason to believe that such actions will not take place again. We fear that Russia might have an insatiable hunger for more land, in spite of the fact that it already possesses copious amounts of it. It is not just the fact that you slaughtered Prussians, but also the fact that this was newly taken Russian land.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

OOC: To slightly misquote Tales from Bedbug Island:

"Get your units out of Poland and Georgia, then I will talk. They are ethnically and historically Russian, as you well know- like any other small defenceless countries within range of Russian protection."

 

[TheLastJacobite]

Why, then, was Poland annexed entirely? There were no Russians in Danzig, in Warsaw or in Krakow. This action was clearly just a move to gain resources and power, and Europe has no reason to believe that such actions will not take place again. We fear that Russia might have an insatiable hunger for more land, in spite of the fact that it already possesses copious amounts of it. It is not just the fact that you slaughtered Prussians, but also the fact that this was newly taken Russian land.

To Flanders
From Russia

As we stated previously, our goal once our peace terms to only keep the territory we had captured was utterly rejected, was to ensure that the Krakow Pact would never pose a threat to Russia again. The Georgians are Slavs such as ourselves, and as they have not rebelled, have been welcomed fully into the United Russian Empire. The Hungarians used cowardly tricks and natural obstacles to stymie our advances and then invaded our territory, so we shifted their geographic holdings to ensure they cannot pull the same trick twice. Meanwhile, Poland invited the British to fortify troops along our border (after Scandinavia and ourselves had extended to them the hand of friendship, and the United Kingdom had attempted to "buy" our allegiance) and acted in such a manner as to show that any Polish state would always pose a threat to Russia. We determined that annexation and occupation would be the only way to ensure that they would never again threaten us. The Germans have shown time and time again to be untrustworthy and that any presence of the German Brotherhood in a nation is the harbinger of annexation by Brandenburg and the GEL. We prefer to deal harshly with rebels and terrorists so that all may know what happens to those that stand against our rule.

We will (again) point out that the Poles have not been unduly discriminated against. In fact, Polish citizens of the United Russian Empire were instrumental in executing the Culling of the Prussian Rebellion and that those Poles who abide by our laws and honor our rule are afforded the same rights as all Russian citizens.

OOC: See, I see it more as the anthropomorphic comic version of WW2, where Russia claims, in regards to Poland "HALF IS MINE!". EQ knows what I'm talking about lol

EDIT: It was Germany; this comic here. I also should note that all diplomacy I do as Russia, in my head it sounds like Vas from the amazing graphic novel series The Boys lol

Spoiler :

http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb367/Doughboy9585/ww2simle_byangusmcleod569.jpg

 

[TheLizardKing]

From: Austria, on behalf of the GEL
To: Russia

We question when the German Brotherhood has led to Brandenburg or any member of the GEL for that matter has annexed any land? There has been no precedent for such a thing, and the Brotherhood's activity in France is purely based off of the Confederation's inability to properly manage some of their lands, those of which are coincidentally primarily German.

 

[TheLastJacobite]

From: Austria, on behalf of the GEL
To: Russia

We question when the German Brotherhood has led to Brandenburg or any member of the GEL for that matter has annexed any land? There has been no precedent for such a thing, and the Brotherhood's activity in France is purely based off of the Confederation's inability to properly manage some of their lands, those of which are coincidentally primarily German.

To Austria
From Russia

So the southern Danish population spontaneously decided to join Brandenburg? And the citizens of Pomerania decided overnight to rebel against Scandinavia and murder in cold blood any and all Swedes they could get their hands on? The German Brotherhood was not active in Poland and not eagerly awaiting the day they could join their cohorts in Brandenburg?

 

[Circuit]

To: Japan
From: United States of America

We have transferred the previous garrison of Scottson and ordered the new garrison, and the District General of the District of Scottson, to not allow for any further hostilities between Scottson and Aisuyochi. Hopefully this will avert an escalation of conflict in the North American tundra.

 

[Crezth]

EDIT: It was Germany; this comic here. I also should note that all diplomacy I do as Russia, in my head it sounds like Vas from the amazing graphic novel series The Boys lol

OOC: I can see that, lol.

IC-

We aren't prepared, as Flanders apparently is, to deceive ourselves into thinking that any consensus on that issue would be the same as an overwhelming consensus of interest and motive. We can't be expected to have consensus with you if that means putting up with

This should be rich.

willy-nilly intervention in Continental Europe without the agreement of the powers thereof,

Such as when?

warmongering policy towards Russia,

In your own words, defensive alliances are not acts of warmongering.

backing every random demand that Brazil makes against a European nation,

Cite the last few Brazilian demands we've "backed." You will find that we have effected to minimize our support in their endeavors except in cases where the New World was threatened unceremoniously, or when the cause of restricting Russia demanded.

making threats against nations we have sworn to protect (or anything similar),

Such as whom?

making threats against ourselves,

When did anyone threaten the Confederation?

and gratuitous overinterpretation or plain misinterpretation of the Treaty of the Tuileries or any other document we or you may be bound by.

Gratuitous? We corrected your mistaken assumption on one clause in the Treaty of Tuileries, one time.

Only if you can actually find for us some sort of reasonable coincidence of policy will we have a consensus with you.

Actually, given how prone you are to disgusting overexaggeration, we are not sure it is possible to have consensus with as scatterbrained a nation as the Confederation.

Well, you are to adopt a general policy of moderation and compromise on terms acceptable to whatever nations you wish to work with. This is a truism: if you want a consensus, or even an agreement on any point, with anyone, then it is always necessary to have some sort of coincidence of demonstrable wishes, interests, or purposes.

We will not compromise on Russia's slaughter of the inhabitants of Poland-Prussia. We have been more than willing, more than willing to work with other European countries. Those that do not make a habit of mass murder.

An even finer job you are doing at bringing Europe under your thumb, at trying to coerce us into coming under your influence on no terms, and at bringing about a Greater War than any we have seen, were we not there to stop you.

And at that, too, you failed. Need we remind you that your defense of Spain was foolhardy and, ultimately, a failure? Granted, ulterior circumstances forced all of Eastern Europe under Russia's fist, but we think the lesson to be taken away from the Great War is not that the United Kingdom is out for blood. Nothing could be further from the truth. No, the lesson that we think all of the civilized world should bring home with them is that the time of alliance blocs is over. Every coalition, every league, every massive international organization has ended up a colossal failure. Either it has been complicit in a nation it was meant to be policing's mass slaughter of fellow Europeans, or it has been the cause of wars of titanic proportions. The lesson from the Great War is that the new age of internationalism must move past the historic constructions of blocs of allegiances, and instead pursue an age of free agency and association. We would never expect all of Europe to kowtow to Britain's interests, and likewise we would never allow our own policies to kowtow to theirs'. If we work with Flanders, the Netherlands, Britanny, Italy, the German Economic League, Denmark, the Commonwealth, or the Confederation, we should expect to do so on their terms at their pleasure. Not at the barrel of a gun, one which says "march with us, or you are free for Russia's picking."

In this manner, we have always been happy to allow the League to carry on their business - so long as it did not violate the Treaty of Tuileries, and so long as it did not serve as little more than Russia's sock-puppet. But now that we see the League is little more than an extranational organization, one which has been used to legitimize the heinous crimes of the Russian state, our hand has been forced.

We ask no European nation to march with us except those which want to. We expect nothing from them which they do not specifically request. This is how we differ from the Confederation and from the Russian Empire.

 

[Quisani]

TO: America
FROM: Japan

We are pleased to hear this. We hope that your settlers restrain themselves this year. If they are unable to, then they will face the consequences of their decision. We are not willing to let them disrupt Japanese settlements at will, but we are also not eager to hold the American government responsible for the actions of a few belligerent citizens. We hope we are not forced into that position.

 

[spryllino]

Such as when?

Prior to the Great War; recently with regard to the potential observers in Rome.

In your own words, defensive alliances are not acts of warmongering.

And as long as we hold true to that and as long as you do too, there need be no issue between us, on which principle our entire argument is based.

Cite the last few Brazilian demands we've "backed." You will find that we have effected to minimize our support in their endeavors except in cases where the New World was threatened unceremoniously, or when the cause of restricting Russia demanded.

But your support has been present and unconditional nevertheless, and your restriction of Russia has been badly judged

Such as whom?

Flanders.

When did anyone threaten the Confederation?

This is a list of potential obstacles to a consensus, not actual ones; as long as you don't threaten the Confederation - which you have not been doing - we hold no objection to you on this point.

Gratuitous? We corrected your mistaken assumption on one clause in the Treaty of Tuileries, one time.

You kept at it for several pages though, and you have continually accused us of using the League to break the Treaty in whatsoever way we chose.

Actually, given how prone you are to disgusting overexaggeration, we are not sure it is possible to have consensus with as scatterbrained a nation as the Confederation.

That's up to you. If you don't want a consensus, kindly leave us alone.

We will not compromise on Russia's slaughter of the inhabitants of Poland-Prussia. We have been more than willing, more than willing to work with other European countries. Those that do not make a habit of mass murder.

Our point is not that, and you can refuse to work with Russia all you like, but rather that we could hardly be connected with a nation that spent the next decade trying its utmost to exact justice from Russia, a mission that could not but fail miserably.

--------

If ever we see good reason why we should abandon Russia and "march" with you, we will do so, but in the meantime we must be counted a European nation that does not wish to march with you, as allowed for in your last paragraph, and we accordingly wish that you expect nothing from us. We are open to offers if you choose to make any.

 

[Grandkhan]

The following is an excerpt from a 1909 issue of the El Pais newspaper, one of the premier newspapers in Madrid

Who is Miguel Primo de Rivera?

With the Phoenix Party's sudden appearance and rise to public exposure, many questions remain unanswered. Where did they come from? Where do they get their funding? However, one question is paramount above all - who is their leader, the charismatic Miguel Primo de Rivera?

This is a difficult question to answer. He seemingly appeared out of nowhere in early 1909, speaking at disreputable bars and small gatherings of veterans. The party he leads, the Phoenix Party, has seen sudden and immense growth from these veterans, enabling them to carry out their hostile acts. But its leader remains a mystery. However, know, this reporter has delved deep into his personal history, to help us understand just who is this dangerous man and what are his aims.

Miguel Primo de Rivera was born in 1870 to an old family of aristocrats in Andalusia. From discussion with his neighbours from his childhood, his family was reportedly poor and penniless. In fact, the de Riveras were known throughout the small town as drunkards and greatly demeaned their noble status. de Rivera's grandfather had squandered the family's wealth on gambling, wine, and horses, and his similarly useless father had spent the remainder of the money supporting the cause of the Aristocrats during the Spanish Civil War, until the family were driven to rampant poverty by his carelessness and pride. de Rivera grew up heir to a proud and arrogant tradition, but little else. His pride led him to get into many fights with various schoolboys, something which he never really excelled at, being small for his age. de Rivera was a poor student in all subjects, though he excelled in Spanish History, and was considering studying the subject at university. However, his family poverty prevented him from doing so, and instead, de Rivera joined the army as a low-level officer in 1890. Almost immediately after joining, the nation was wracked by the Nobles Revolt of 1890. de Rivera, though his loyalty was to the Nobles and the reactionaries, was forced by his officers to fight against the rebels, unleashing deep seated pro-reactionary sentiment and anti-democratic feelings as he saw what he perceived as a government of plutocrats destroying his family tradition.

a young Miguel Primo de Rivera, wearing his shirt showing the Yoke and Arrows that were the symbol of his division

de Rivera continued to serve with distinction in various conflicts around the Spanish Empire. His unit was deployed to suppress native conflicts in the Philippines, where he became a colonel in record time, India, and Cuba as well as to the Holy Land to fight against the Arabs during the outbreak of the Holy Land War, where he gained his promotion to Brigadier for his success during the Battle of Arish. During these campaigns, he often spoke of what he saw to be the decay of the Spanish Empire - his letters to his now deceased brother show that he was furious with the democratisation of Spain and the inability of the government to convince the natives that they were truly Spanish. The Holy Land War, de Rivera believed, was the final culmination of this decay, as foreign nations took advantage of this inability to destroy Spain.

It was against this backdrop that the Great War broke out. A colonel serving under him reports that de Rivera jumped for joy when he heard of the outbreak of war. His brigade was redeployed to the frontlines in Occitania. He became frustrated and furious with the trench warfare and the slow pace of the war. He was wounded twice by gunfire, leading his brigade trying to storm a trench from the front, but somehow survived both times. He was hospitalised when the Occitan trenches broke and the Spanish besieged Toulouse, though his brigade participated to great acclaim. However, as soon as he arrived back to the siege, the war ended and Spain signed the Peace of Madrid. Furious with what he perceived as Spain surrendering on the eve of victory - for he refused to admit that Spain was suffering from lack of resources, the Americans and British could invade at any minute, and the nation was simply incapable of keeping the war going - he returned to Spain in fury, where he somehow found a benefactor and began rallying Spanish veterans who felt the same way into the Phoenix Party, where we see him today.

This does not answer many of the questions about de Rivera, for this author was unable to find them out. Why does he hate the Basques so much? What plans does he have for Spain? Is he truly violent, or have his supporters merely taken his words to heart too strongly? It is a mystery. But perhaps we know a little more about this man, and his apparently insidious aims.

 

[Crezth]

Prior to the Great War; recently with regard to the potential observers in Rome.

What of it? That we did not want Rome to fall under Russia's grip any more than it has should be seen as part of our consistent policy thus far.

And as long as we hold true to that and as long as you do too, there need be no issue between us, on which principle our entire argument is based.

The issue is not between the Confederation and Britain, my dear sir, but between the Confederation and the good nations of Europe whose lands the bear hungrily eyes.

But your support has been present and unconditional nevertheless, and your restriction of Russia has been badly judged

Badly judged? Did Russia or did they not annex an entire nation, Galicia, and Georgia? Did Russia or did they not then put to the sword the hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of those lands? Did Russia or did Russia not make with veiled threats a pass at Scandinavia, threatening to occupy the Nordic lands under the auspices of a peacekeeping mission?

We think we are being entirely reasonable in our sustained policy of Russian containment.

Flanders.

We have never threatened Flanders. If you're referring to the incident in the Roman Empire, we would like to point out that our intervention was never an act of extortion nor aggression, and that in fact our critique of Flanders was localized to our perceiving their support of Russia.

This is a list of potential obstacles to a consensus, not actual ones; as long as you don't threaten the Confederation - which you have not been doing - we hold no objection to you on this point.

So you admit that it's mostly rhetorical flourish without any actual substance. Duly noted.

You kept at it for several pages though,

Irrelevant!

and you have continually accused us of using the League to break the Treaty in whatsoever way we chose.

And have you not? We have it on excellent authority that the Confederation intended to use the League as an extranational organization to act without accordance with the Treaty of Tuileries. We have thus far been silent on this matter, but if the Confederation would like to dare suggest that our fears regarding their use of the League were unfounded, then we will publish the votes on every issue the League ever voted on for the world to see.

That's up to you. If you don't want a consensus, kindly leave us alone.

Remember that it is the Confederation here that is swimming against the flow. The entire rest of Europe plus the United Kingdom disagrees with you. So we believe it is actually the Confederation that does not want actual consensus.

Our point is not that, and you can refuse to work with Russia all you like, but rather that we could hardly be connected with a nation that spent the next decade trying its utmost to exact justice from Russia, a mission that could not but fail miserably.

Do you disagree that the hundreds of thousands of dead in Poland-Prussia do not require a form of justice to be exacted on their behalf? Or are you complicit in their extermination?

If ever we see good reason why we should abandon Russia and "march" with you, we will do so, but in the meantime we must be counted a European nation that does not wish to march with you, as allowed for in your last paragraph, and we accordingly wish that you expect nothing from us. We are open to offers if you choose to make any.

If Franco-Burgundy wants to align herself with murderers, that's her own lookout. We are simply here to counter the notion that the Confederation's continued alliance with Russia is somehow not diplomatically consequential.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Apology for the delay so far, but I have good reasons! Well, not really, but it's 45% luckymoose's fault. Here they are:

1. Thursday I had a freak staple remover injury to my hands, didn't want to type with a bandaid on each finger.

2. Luckymoose got me hooked on Day Z, a mod for ARMA 2, and totally worth buying just for the mod. Check it out NOW and we can all survive the zombie apocalpyse together! Y'know, until luckymoose betrays us and kills us all. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...poSAAg&usg=AFQjCNFINiMuPfhstSWcsLwJVgJt4Co4OA

3. My wife got hooked on Day Z too, and "couple time" now includes surviving the zombie apocalypse.

Since my wife and I are playing together, and she's going to be out tomorrow, I'll be obligated to work on the update then. So with luck and a fair wind, the update should be done then. Worst case, I should be finishing it after my July 4th festivities.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

I know some are uneasy at the long delay and my recent fascination with the mod Day Z (still highly recommend to all). I have broken through my writer's block however, and progress is being made. I have committed the fourth to spending time with my wife, as we're surviving the zombie apocalpyse together, and will only have time to spend an hour or two on the update tomorrow. I have spent three hours on it today, and in bits and pieces, we're getting close to being done. I'm optimistically saying that the earliest it'll be up is Thursday night, but Friday night is more likely.

 

[Jehoshua]

OOC: The Holy See patiently awaits update ahead, and wishes a well-recieved July 4 to the inhabitants of the United States of America

 

[SamSniped]

OOC: Have fun celebrating the birthday of America and killing zombies! Blow some stuff up

 

[Circuit]

President Miller shall be riding a white horse in the Pennsylvania Avenue Parade this July 4th.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

Sorry if this is a little (by little, I mean too) late, but could there be a chance that I could still join this wonderful NES?

 

[Jehoshua]

if there is a free nation floating around then yes. All you have to do is take over the leadership of such a nation.