Discussion in 'Imperium OffTopicum' started by NedimNapoleon, Jul 2, 2012.
ooc: Yep. A bunch of worthless desert rats. I could even defeat them only with sheer numbers.
Did anyone take Free India seriously a few turns ago?
What, am I supposed to consider it seriously now? I mean, you most possibly are going to make it out, but you're still a pretty minor force in my eyes.
I'll rephrase it:
In 1928 did anyone think that the British Empire could have been taken on by some rebels, or as they called us "terrorists"?
(I don't actually believe that the Morocco rebels have any sort of chance, but I'm just saying). You definitely came out of the war much better than Britain did, and you are not fighting in a far-flung heavily populated colony. But what would you do if Mozambique and Angola pulled an Australia?
They're not comparable. It is my opinion that you've managed to fare so well because Britain devoted all efforts to the war in Europe. I personally always thought that was a mistake (taking only British interests into account), but of course the possibility of the war in Europe going worse for the allies would have been posing a direct threat to homeland security in Britain, so it is quite difficult to say that it was actually a bad choice.
But it is obvious that its opportunity cost was the probable loss of India. If Angola pulled an Australia I'd be quite happy. I would invade specifying that I did it from positions in Equatorial Guinea (in case the host cared the slightest about logistics, which I'm not sure he does) and I'd proceed to wipe the floor with Angolans and fully annex them.
Things would be a bit more difficult with Mozambique, I'd probably do the same but asking friendly countries to temporarily use their facilities.
Although your wording is somewhat hurtful, we will gladly accept Australian independence. We thank you kindly for your service during the war, and hope that you wish to maintain an alliance.
Sorry for all the posts. Dealing with one revolutionary colony at a time here.
To: The Arabs of Palestine and Mesopotamia:
We are willing to withdraw from Mandatory Palestine and Mesopotamia and allow you to join your Arab brethren in Saudi Arabia. However, we will retain control of the Sinai peninsula, and our generous offer is dependent on your withdrawl from Sinai.
Send in the troops to quash the rebellions in Biafra and India.
Agreed but we do not wish to be included into Saudi Arabia, we wish to create a secular nationalist Pan Arabic Republic on the region of Palestine and Mesopotamia.
None of our business.
Dissolution of Kingdom of Belgium
The Kingdom of the Netherlands, on behalf of the defunct Kingdom of Belgium, announces that the former Belgian territory no longer holds independence and must dissolve as a nation. Belgium has violated the Treaty of London of 1839, in which both its independence and neutrality were agreed upon. As Belgium has not upheld its promise of neutrality through its declaration of war, the entire treaty is rendered invalid, therefore its independence as a nation is invalid.
As such, the Netherlands shall hereby govern, as it had prior to the treaty, the provinces of Southern Brabant, Liege, Namur, Hainaut, West Flanders, East Flanders, Antwerp, and the entirety of Limburg. Furthermore, the portion of Luxembourg which was partitioned to Belgium shall be returned to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. The East Cantons shall be returned to the Weimar Republic, the legal successors to the German Empire. The Congo territory shall be partitioned between powers to be concluded at a later date. The Kingdom of the Netherlands endorses the holding of a conference to discuss partition in the city of Luxembourg.
The United Kingdom does not sanction or support the actions of the Kigdom of the Netherlands, and will continue to uphold our obligations to the Kingdom of Belgium as the Treaty of London requires. The elimination of the neutrality clause does not invalidate the Treaty of London.
Actually, it does.
The proposed action of the Netherlands is in violation of Article Six, which is not affected by the breaking of Belgian neutrality. The events of August 1914 and of October 1929 invalidated Article Seven, but not Article Six.
This means that both of you are in the wrong, and what should actually happen is an independent Belgian state which didn't have its Pre-Dutch government.
There are three treaties of the combined Treaty of London of 1839, and the one in question is the "Treaty between Belgium and the Netherlands, relative to the separation of their respective territories", and not the "Treaty between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia, on the one part, and The Netherlands, on the other". This latter treaty addresses only actions which were to be committed immediately at the time, to secure peace, and not towards the legality of the Kingdom of Belgium. The part in question was signed then only between the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Duchy of Luxembourg, and the Kingdom of Belgium.
Now, each article of the "Treaty between Belgium and the Netherlands" was not signed independently of each other, but as parts of one whole treaty. As such, any violation directly nullifies the entire treaty. The violation was committed by Belgium upon Article 7 of this treaty, which defines Belgium as an independent and neutral nation. Belgium did not observe neutrality with all nations and so rejects its independence. The breach has voided said treaty; therefore the entire of the treaty, as was defined, is illegal and invalid, including Article 6.
The actions of the Netherlands are thus valid, and the continued independence of a Belgian state is illegal.
lurker's comment: I support the actions of The Netherlands. Also I'm tired of having to go to the subforum everytime I want to read this thread so I make this post (yes, I know I can just use the subscribe button, but where would be the fun in that?
Is there any reason in particular why you haven't bookmarked IOT? Aside from your heresy, of course.
Separate names with a comma.