Discussion in 'Never Ending Stories' started by SouthernKing, Feb 5, 2014.
Can we please have the fool removed as A-H?
In regards to NWAG's claim that embracing liberalism and nationalism would only doom the Empire, I think thats about fairly incorrect. I can't see why embracing liberalism inevitably dooms the Austrian Empire in the long run.
On the contrary, trying to push absolutist rule (especially under a German Emperor) could arguably push liberal nationalists towards independence as an easier method of escaping the rule of Imperial autocracy as an alternative to trying to reform a vast government system towards a democratic model against the wishes of a powerful and entrenched aristocracy.
Sure, you might try to push fundamentalist Catholicism as a unifying identity, but you've got to adapt that to the times and the NES - as SK said, political Catholicism is dead in this timeline, and trying to resurrect would be seen as desperate, sad, and ultimately pointless if the majority of your population thinks political Catholicism is a joke.
Ethnic separatist movements don't just manifest because "Emperor Joseph is not teh Hungarians." They are the result of an extended period of divergent policy desires between a dominant governing ethnic group (in the Austrian example, the Germans in Vienna) and a less dominant ethnic group (in our example, the Hungarians). If enough of the non-dominant group's policy desires aren't satisfied, then they will begin to wonder what they even get out of this union in the first place, and begin to consider and embrace ethnic separatism as a means to achieve their policy desires in the first place.
A liberal multiethnic federal union is an actual solution this problem, as it (theoretically, anyway, it really depends on who's running things and just how much of a true multiethnic federation it is) gives all ethnicities the opportunity to achieve at least some of their policy desires, likely compromising some of their policy ambitions for the political and military security and economic opportunities federation with other states brings.
The typical example of this is in education in your language - if you are able to set your own ethnicity's education policy, then you can educate in your own language (usually teaching the chosen 'national' language as a second language) then you are able to ensure that members of your ethnicity are able to receive a quality education and participate in all sectors of society. This is a very common complaint across history that leads to secession - a central government dominated by a single ethnicity forcing down a language in education and as a result members of non-governing ethnicities out of educational institutions because they don't speak the language of governing choice.
Multi-ethnic federations can be good for these types of problems, because they result in ethnicity being able to compromise and achieve some of their political ambitions. Case in point, India seemingly hasn't collapsed into a horrible civil war that leads to the dissolution of the union and the secession of Kerala, and its probably not going to barring a serious divergence in policy between New Delhi and the rest of the country. (This is not to say that violent popular separatist movements exist, but somehow the entirety of India hasn't completely seceded from the central government so yeah).
Obviously multi-ethnic federations (or federations in general) aren't perfect, and massive policy divergences can still appear and lead to secession (case in point, Yugoslavia). But they are a solution and they have been shown to work. The key thing is that multiethnic federalism relies on the ethnicities being able to achieve the policy that they themselves want, which requires a degree of voting and thus, liberalism (because you can't really express what you really want from your government without free elections and political freedom). Thus, you need liberals writing your constitution: in an 1850s context, your government needs to embrace Liberalism.
Thats just one solution to the issue of a multiethnic state trying to stay together, I'm sure there are others. Doesn't matter, its still a method of keeping Austria-Hungary together while embracing liberalism as a governing ideology.
As an aside, in any case to keep a multi-ethnic union together you need to embrace nationalism anyway. You need to create a feeling of loyalty to the wider polity rather than your own ethnic group, because when people are more loyal to the desires of their ethnicity than the polity you start to get policy divergences. In any case, you need to build pan-Austrian nationalism, whichever route you choose in trying to keep your state together. Technically speaking, everything you do will be embracing nationalism.
Seon, that... is actually a good idea. However, I'm honour-bound not to use it. Why? Because if I get tips from outsiders it gives me an unfair advantage.
As for why I'm making these threats anyway, I'll admit OOCly that I'm basing this off the fact I really have no choice. Otherwise, it's too massive a loss of prestige. I have to at the very least throw my weight around, even if there's no substance to it.
lurker's comment: It would be advisable for you to resign your position, NWAG, because under the forum rules instituted after the last discussion, SK does have the the right to petition Birdjaguar for your removal if your presence is deemed sufficiently disruptive to the entire NES.
Given that you have been extremely uncooperative, stubborn, and seem to lack a firm grasp of basic political concepts necessary to participate in the game, it's probably for the best that you leave of your own free will rather than forcing him to exercise that right.
OOC: If you are unable to roleplay someone who has views different from your own, then you're not capable of roleplaying, NWAG. Frankly I think you're being downright cancerous.
I have in no way intended to disrupt the game. I am playing in good faith, just like everybody else, attempting the policies I think will lead me to victory.
GrandKhan- Your analysis doesn't work. The first thing I should point out here is that the constituency I am trying to appeal to is the peasant, generally the most superstitious and conservative category.
It doesn't matter how well-governed a state is, it still has nationalist problems. Take Great Britain, which has had a Scottish secession movement against all logic. In addition, there is the problem of "Give an inch and they take a mile" whilch historically Franz Josef experienced after giving the Hungarians a role in the Union.
Pan-Austrian Nationalism, in the long run, will lead to the fall of the Hapsburg Dynasty. I have already defined both that and a Constitutional Monarchy as I Lose, because I am basing my objectives on what would be realistic for the time. As one Emperor put it, "Is he a patriot for me?" Devotion must be to the Monarch, not the Nation, or else the Monarch will be overthrown for the good of the Nation.
Thayli- You people have no right to treat me the way you do. There is nothing in the rules of NESing saying that anything I am doing is wrong. If SouthernKing had given a warning against such behaviour that would be a different matter.
Lord Iggy- It's more that I can't roleplay this one thing. It's only a single weakness. I misunderstood at the start, as I thought SouthernKing meant a liberal party had won the elections, not that the Monarch was liberal.
And this is why you are wrong.
If they are so superstitious and conservative then you shouldn't have any problems whatsoever and nationalism shouldn't be a thing. I'm not sure what your point is.
Nationalism has nothing to do with how well a state is governed. Its not about how well its governed, its about what the residents of X ethnicity want vs. what the residents of Y ethnicity want. The quality of governance has nothing to do with it, its the disparity between desires for policy.
Scottish nationalism (which, by the way, is on the wane and by no means implies that soon there will be a Scottish state formed from the ashes of Great Britain) comes from Scots wanting greater control over North Sea oil in the wake of de-industrialisation in the 70s, not because of the quality of governance by London. They're completely different issues - people always think policy they oppose is terrible.
I don't get why you think nationalist movements spring out of the ground fully formed for no reason because "You are not the arabs."
Except your objectives are not realistic for the timeline. Joseph has been established as a liberal. Your objectives make no sense because
a) Your king has already been stated that he doesn't embrace that, and unfortunately if you're roleplaying you kind of have to go with whats previously established and
b) Austria-Hungary has already been established as a limited monarchy so you've already lost.
I haven't lost because I can restore Austria-Hungary to a state very different from it's starting one. Which means reversing the reforms.
I don't claim the peasants are purely superstitous and conservative- merely enough so that the Catholic Church's opinions matter to them.
Finally, if you're so sure of yourself you should be able to explain policies in the period and how the nationalist movements were logical. Why were Germany and Italy considered as national groupings at the borders they were at the time? Why was France relatively immune to secessionist groupings? Why were the Poles intent on revolt so much?
At the very least, you must concede that nationalist movements didn't exist in Europe for a long time until nationalism was created as a cultural invention. What culture creates, culture can destroy.
I know I'm a newbie compared to you, but ENOUGH ALREADY. NWAG, you've lost. Pretty much everyone who's posted has agreed you need to either quit playing as Austria-Hungary or revise your role as it. They've already given several reasons why your current play-style is not correct. Do yourself a favor and concede gracefully. Otherwise, don't be surprised if you find out you have been removed as Austria-Hungary.
Don't worry, ChineseWarlord. You may be newer than him, but you're far more advanced.
To revise my role is to shoot myself in the foot, therefore absurd.
I have every right to play like everybody else.
NWAG, there's really no harm in listening to advices. Some of us are trying to help you out here. The best of us ask for advices from third parties during NESes. So why not you?
OOC: after reading Disaster at Leuthen I see multiple OOC arrangements.
OOC: I know I'm new here, too, and so my opinion's probably not worth that much, but aren't we massively derailing this thread? I completely and utterly messed up my own country within two real-time days, but I'm doing my best to acknowledge my mistakes and learn from them, so I can clamber out of the hole I dug myself. I guess I'd expect someone who's been NESing for far, far longer that I have to accept that he made some mistakes (which are pretty much unavoidable if you're a human) and either change his in-game position to be more IC or swap to one of the other ~36 nations available to play as that better aligns with his personal political and religious beliefs. Either way, I'd really rather not see this NES get killed before the first update due to a rather silly argument.
There is no danger at all that the NES will not survive because of NWAG's antics. Austria-Hungary on the other hand is now not long for this world.
You must give me the throne, NWAG.
NWAG, what are you seriously trying to get out of arguing anymore? Everybody is against you and you have no chance at actually winning this argument. You should try to save what reputation you have left amongst the other NESers and change your government to what it is supposed to be. Before this gets uglier than it already is, fix this problem.
I've PM'd Birdjaguar. In the meantime, can we please end this derail and get back IC? At least take the argument elsewhere.
Deadline is still Wednesday.
NWAG, winning is not the point of playing. Until you understand this, you should not play. And actually will probably never win in the end
Separate names with a comma.