|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Jun 30, 2023 18:15:29 GMT
1. You were the ones who allowed and caused the rise of the Nazi Germany in the first place. For the unfair Versailles, the Germans wanted revenge. And when the monster was born, you tried to appease it, allowing it to grow. 2-4. I didn't support their expansionism, just like you had to cooperate with Italy, we and Poland had to so the same with Austria-Hungary. Don't accuse me if you'll deny you did the same thing for the same reason. 5-6. Why are you militarily occupying the Baltics then? Or Albania? Or the rest of your colonies? Your empire has its flaws? Are you serious? Imperialism cannot be excused, and you're just being hypocritical when you accuse me with Romania and Estonia, while you're doing the samw with Albania and the Baltics. 6.2. If you truly wanted, you could dissolve your empire. Even if not socialism, capitalist democracy is still better than imperialism. Your empire is kept alive by force. While the USSR is a voluntary union. 7. You didn't appease Nazi Germany? The historians are already writing about this called "the appeasement policy" You were the ones who allowed the rearmament of Rhineland and the German rearmament in the first place. I'm not saying the Germans wanting to defend against French and British aggression is wrong. I'm saying that you were the one behind the Versailles. And then the one who tried to appease the Nazi Germany and ignored all its violations of the agreement, allowing the monster to rise. 8. I didn't support the Austrian expansion if you didn't support the Italian fascists. I, just like Poland, cooperated with them because we thought you were cooperating with Italy. This is I assume what caused this disagreement in the first place. Also, you knew of my and Poland's plans in Romania. I'd tagged you as well. You didn't object, because you knew our reasons. And now, you're acting like we're the agressors. 9. I don't think so, like I explained. Unless you want to fight, I see no reason to become this aggressive. 1. I would he a hypocrite if I was the one who started blaming you of imperialism. 2. When and how did I co-operate with Italy? Which country did I help them invade? 3. Do you accept the terms, and if not, present atleast a reasonable counter offer. 1. It's an objective truth that France has colonies, and so does Spain. Also, not only you, but Spain also accused me of it. I merely replid to these accusations, by explaining why the union doesn't mean imperialism. The hypocritical thing was you two accused me of imperialism, while it's a universally known fact that both Spain anf France have colonies. 2. Which country did I help Austria-Hungary invade? Romania? Poland and I merely took parts of it. What should we have done, allow Austria-Hungary invade all of it and strengthen even more? We were allies at the time with you, we couldn't open war without all of us being ready. So, that time wasn't the right time to attack Austria-Hungary. Instead, we had to strenghten ourselves too. Secondly, you knew of our plan, and you didn't object. Because it was similar to what you proposed in the Baltics in the beginning, which is why the three of us divided them. Am I wrong? 3. I will make a counter offer. I just wish to conclude the other discussion we've been having first. We cannot expect ourselves to have a proper negotiation while there are many unconcluded matters in hand. We cannot negotiate while we're shouting at each other, can we? Let's firsr conclude the remaining points, so that they won't be a problem in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jun 30, 2023 18:30:52 GMT
1. I would he a hypocrite if I was the one who started blaming you of imperialism. 2. When and how did I co-operate with Italy? Which country did I help them invade? 3. Do you accept the terms, and if not, present atleast a reasonable counter offer. 1. It's an objective truth that France has colonies, and so does Spain. Also, not only you, but Spain also accused me of it. I merely replid to these accusations, by explaining why the union doesn't mean imperialism. The hypocritical thing was you two accused me of imperialism, while it's a universally known fact that both Spain anf France have colonies. 2. Which country did I help Austria-Hungary invade? Romania? Poland and I merely took parts of it. What should we have done, allow Austria-Hungary invade all of it and strengthen even more? We were allies at the time with you, we couldn't open war without all of us being ready. So, that time wasn't the right time to attack Austria-Hungary. Instead, we had to strenghten ourselves too. Secondly, you knew of our plan, and you didn't object. Because it was similar to what you proposed in the Baltics in the beginning, which is why the three of us divided them. Am I wrong? 3. I will make a counter offer. I just wish to conclude the other discussion we've been having first. We cannot expect ourselves to have a proper negotiation while there are many unconcluded matters in hand. We cannot negotiate while we're shouting at each other, can we? Let's firsr conclude the remaining points, so that they won't be a problem in the future. 1. It was you who started threatening that "the proletariat makes no concessions" and that our democracies "only let the slaves choose their masters". 2. You had all the power to oppose them, I did not. I was not happy with the invasion, but what could I do? Go against the three of you? If you had simply set a line to Austrian expansion and denied them Romania with the threat of ultimatum, which I did with Czechoslovakia, but couldn't follow through on it because of your spinelessness, they could have been stopped. "It wasn't the right time for war." It was the right time to let them expand as they wished? Tell me who is the hypocrite? In the Baltics, there was no Austria-Hungary. And once again after accusations of co-operation with fascists, you fail to answer my question. 3. Well go on, I have answered for my part. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Jun 30, 2023 18:42:57 GMT
1. It's an objective truth that France has colonies, and so does Spain. Also, not only you, but Spain also accused me of it. I merely replid to these accusations, by explaining why the union doesn't mean imperialism. The hypocritical thing was you two accused me of imperialism, while it's a universally known fact that both Spain anf France have colonies. 2. Which country did I help Austria-Hungary invade? Romania? Poland and I merely took parts of it. What should we have done, allow Austria-Hungary invade all of it and strengthen even more? We were allies at the time with you, we couldn't open war without all of us being ready. So, that time wasn't the right time to attack Austria-Hungary. Instead, we had to strenghten ourselves too. Secondly, you knew of our plan, and you didn't object. Because it was similar to what you proposed in the Baltics in the beginning, which is why the three of us divided them. Am I wrong? 3. I will make a counter offer. I just wish to conclude the other discussion we've been having first. We cannot expect ourselves to have a proper negotiation while there are many unconcluded matters in hand. We cannot negotiate while we're shouting at each other, can we? Let's firsr conclude the remaining points, so that they won't be a problem in the future. 1. It was you who started threatening that "the proletariat makes no concessions" and that our democracies "only let the slaves choose their masters". 2. You had all the power to oppose them, I did not. I was not happy with the invasion, but what could I do? Go against the three of you? If you had simply set a line to Austrian expansion and denied them Romania with the threat of ultimatum, which I did with Czechoslovakia, but couldn't follow through on it because of your spinelessness. And once again after accusations of co-operation with fascists, you fail to answer my question. 3. Well go on, I have answered for my part. 2. Like I said, I thought that you were cooperating with the Italians at the time, which is why I had to "cooperate" with the Austrians, just like you thought I did the same with Austria-Hungary. Both of us were wrong in this case (yet how could the RP continue without some drama, says the inner voice  ). Furthermore, my first and foremost principle is socialism, which Austria-Hungary was very much positive toward. Therefore, I had every reason to choose them over fascist Italy, which you might consider cooperation. I'm not denying this. Due to the conditions of that time, I had to concede in this topic, by cooperating with a monarchy. The other option was turning to Italy, and I preferred Austria over them. I wish there was a way both you and me could have we didn't actually want to betray each other, but rather, we thought the other side was doing it. Which made you have to talk with Italy. And, unfortunately, made me turn to Austria-Hungary. How could we have known this? Yes, we talked at least one time, when we accused each other of betrayal. If you wonder why I didn't stop this back then, because even if we had really betrayed each other, both of us would naturally deny it. So, I don't blame you if you don't blame me. It doesn't matter who started it, because everyone will blame the other. So, basically let's both acknowledge our mistake of miscommunication, shall we? I'm not seeking a fight, and I'm sure you aren't either. Which means there's no reason why we shouldn't do this. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Jun 30, 2023 18:46:23 GMT
As for the first point, Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov, I think it's a well-known fact that we're the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We of course oppose capitalism, and support international socialist movements. We're also anti-imperialist, and both you and Spain have colonies. So, that's why I said so. Also, we actually called for peace to both you and Austria-Hungary, as the latter hadn't ended yet. Because millions of workers from both sides were going to die, while a workers' revolution at Austria-Hungary could have saved them more quickly and with less bloodshed. So, my action was far from aggression, while Spain has been pretty aggressive toward me for no reason. They've also excluded Poland from the conference, although they have the right to join us too. So, I hope you don't support the open Spanish aggression. Also, they recently invaded Malta with no justification. And you didn't condemn it in any way, I don't know why. In any case, Spain is clearly the aggressor, as you can see. |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Jun 30, 2023 18:54:04 GMT
Only for Kliment Jefremovitš VorošilovI did not choose to be flanked on the east and south by the Soviets, and yet that is the situation at present. If they approach me and compel me to do actions that are in their interests, I do not have much of a choice to resist. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jun 30, 2023 19:22:15 GMT
1. It was you who started threatening that "the proletariat makes no concessions" and that our democracies "only let the slaves choose their masters". 2. You had all the power to oppose them, I did not. I was not happy with the invasion, but what could I do? Go against the three of you? If you had simply set a line to Austrian expansion and denied them Romania with the threat of ultimatum, which I did with Czechoslovakia, but couldn't follow through on it because of your spinelessness. And once again after accusations of co-operation with fascists, you fail to answer my question. 3. Well go on, I have answered for my part. 2. Like I said, I thought that you were cooperating with the Italians at the time, which is why I had to "cooperate" with the Austrians, just like you thought I did the same with Austria-Hungary. Both of us were wrong in this case (yet how could the RP continue without some drama, says the inner voice ). Furthermore, my first and foremost principle is socialism, which Austria-Hungary was very much positive toward. Therefore, I had every reason to choose them over fascist Italy, which you might consider cooperation. I'm not denying this. Due to the conditions of that time, I had to concede in this topic, by cooperating with a monarchy. The other option was turning to Italy, and I preferred Austria over them. I wish there was a way both you and me could have we didn't actually want to betray each other, but rather, we thought the other side was doing it. Which made you have to talk with Italy. And, unfortunately, made me turn to Austria-Hungary. How could we have known this? Yes, we talked at least one time, when we accused each other of betrayal. If you wonder why I didn't stop this back then, because even if we had really betrayed each other, both of us would naturally deny it. So, I don't blame you if you don't blame me. It doesn't matter who started it, because everyone will blame the other. So, basically let's both acknowledge our mistake of miscommunication, shall we? I'm not seeking a fight, and I'm sure you aren't either. Which means there's no reason why we shouldn't do this. Well, I accept, but I still insist my terms for the split of Austria-Hungary are reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Jun 30, 2023 19:49:20 GMT
2. Like I said, I thought that you were cooperating with the Italians at the time, which is why I had to "cooperate" with the Austrians, just like you thought I did the same with Austria-Hungary. Both of us were wrong in this case (yet how could the RP continue without some drama, says the inner voice ). Furthermore, my first and foremost principle is socialism, which Austria-Hungary was very much positive toward. Therefore, I had every reason to choose them over fascist Italy, which you might consider cooperation. I'm not denying this. Due to the conditions of that time, I had to concede in this topic, by cooperating with a monarchy. The other option was turning to Italy, and I preferred Austria over them. I wish there was a way both you and me could have we didn't actually want to betray each other, but rather, we thought the other side was doing it. Which made you have to talk with Italy. And, unfortunately, made me turn to Austria-Hungary. How could we have known this? Yes, we talked at least one time, when we accused each other of betrayal. If you wonder why I didn't stop this back then, because even if we had really betrayed each other, both of us would naturally deny it. So, I don't blame you if you don't blame me. It doesn't matter who started it, because everyone will blame the other. So, basically let's both acknowledge our mistake of miscommunication, shall we? I'm not seeking a fight, and I'm sure you aren't either. Which means there's no reason why we shouldn't do this. Well, I accept, but I still insist my terms for the split of Austria-Hungary are reasonable. I'm genuinely glad we could reach an understanding. The French seem to be far more reasonable than the Spanish. My counter offer would be this: I get the rest of Romania (it's pretty small anyway), Yugoslavia (we're Slav brothers in the end) and Hungary, like your original proposal. My only extra demand is Latvia, with its one factory. So you'll still have one more than me. As you can see, I'm not really asking for much. Plus, you'll literally get Germany and Austria with all their factories. I'd say the Polish can get North Eastern Germany though, they've deserved it. Also, the original reason you got the territory in Baltics was because of the German threat, which no longer exists. Plus, it'd be hard for you to protect it in the future anyway, being too far away. Germany would compensate this, plus you also have Portugal, Albania, Turkey etc. And like I said, far as I remember, Latvia has only one factory, so you'll still have one more than me, as well as more territory. Does this sound good? |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jun 30, 2023 20:04:11 GMT
Well, I accept, but I still insist my terms for the split of Austria-Hungary are reasonable. I'm genuinely glad we could reach an understanding. The French seem to be far more reasonable than the Spanish. My counter offer would be this: I get the rest of Romania (it's pretty small anyway), Yugoslavia (we're Slav brothers in the end) and Hungary, like your original proposal. My only extra demand is Latvia, with its one factory. So you'll still have one more than me. As you can see, I'm not really asking for much. Plus, you'll literally get Germany and Austria with all their factories. I'd say the Polish can get North Eastern Germany though, they've deserved it. Also, the original reason you got the territory in Baltics was because of the German threat, which no longer exists. Plus, it'd be hard for you to protect it in the future anyway, being too far away. Germany would compensate this, plus you also have Portugal, Albania, Turkey etc. And like I said, far as I remember, Latvia has only one factory, so you'll still have one more than me, as well as more territory. Does this sound good? I will cede Latvia and its factory, but I will demand Montenegro, Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia. You get the factory of Yugoslavia, as well as Serbia, the old friend of Russia, while I gain access for my military to pass through land from Albania to France.  |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Jun 30, 2023 20:19:25 GMT
I'm genuinely glad we could reach an understanding. The French seem to be far more reasonable than the Spanish. My counter offer would be this: I get the rest of Romania (it's pretty small anyway), Yugoslavia (we're Slav brothers in the end) and Hungary, like your original proposal. My only extra demand is Latvia, with its one factory. So you'll still have one more than me. As you can see, I'm not really asking for much. Plus, you'll literally get Germany and Austria with all their factories. I'd say the Polish can get North Eastern Germany though, they've deserved it. Also, the original reason you got the territory in Baltics was because of the German threat, which no longer exists. Plus, it'd be hard for you to protect it in the future anyway, being too far away. Germany would compensate this, plus you also have Portugal, Albania, Turkey etc. And like I said, far as I remember, Latvia has only one factory, so you'll still have one more than me, as well as more territory. Does this sound good? I will cede Latvia and its factory, but I will demand Montenegro, Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia. You get the factory of Yugoslavia, as well as Serbia, the old friend of Russia, while I gain access for my military to pass through land from Albania to France. 1. Montenegro, Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia? Four countries for one? I think it's clear that that's unfair. Obviously, I'll have to reject this. It'll also cause asymetric borders, and cut my sea access. You already access many seas, from the English Channel to the Mediterranean. Even if I get Yugoslavia, you'll still have Albania. 2. Also, why? Assuming that you obviously wish no hostility with me, why land access? Isn't navy and transport aircrafts not enough? If a threat arose, I'd obviously help you, as we're no enemies. I'd at least help you access there. But currently there's no threat, so there's no reason for 4 countries (and the RP will likely end soon anyway with Austria gone, says the narrator lol) 3. I'd like to repeat my original offer, and how it benefits you: 1. You'll literally get Germany. It's a pretty developed countries, far more than the ones I'll get. It's alone enough for the glory it gives. Furthermore, you'll get Austria as an addition. 2. You'll have one more factory than me, which is pretty significant. 3. The land you get is directly beside your borders, while mine is far away. So, you'll be already advantageous. 4. You already control many countries, from Portugal to Turkey to all your overseas territory. And get Germany and Austria as the addition. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jun 30, 2023 20:25:42 GMT
I will cede Latvia and its factory, but I will demand Montenegro, Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia. You get the factory of Yugoslavia, as well as Serbia, the old friend of Russia, while I gain access for my military to pass through land from Albania to France. 1. Montenegro, Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia? Four countries for one? I think it's clear that that's unfair. Obviously, I'll have to reject this. It'll also cause asymetric borders, and cut my sea access. You already access many seas, from the English Channel to the Mediterranean. Even if I get Yugoslavia, you'll still have Albania. 2. Also, why? Assuming that you obviously wish no hostility with me, why land access? Isn't navy and transport aircrafts not enough? If a threat arose, I'd obviously help you, as we're no enemies. I'd at least help you access there. But currently there's no threat, so there's no reason for 4 countries (and the RP will likely end soon anyway with Austria gone, says the narrator lol) 3. I'd like to repeat my original offer, and how it benefits you: 1. You'll literally get Germany. It's a pretty developed countries, far more than the ones I'll get. It's alone enough for the glory it gives. Furthermore, you'll get Austria as an addition. 2. You'll have one more factory than me, which is pretty significant. 3. The land you get is directly beside your borders, while mine is far away. So, you'll be already advantageous. 4. You already control many countries, from Portugal to Turkey to all your overseas territory. And get Germany and Austria as the addition. Okay, I will give you all of Yugoslavia, but Slovenia and Montenegro. That's a fair compromise. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Jun 30, 2023 20:42:21 GMT
1. Montenegro, Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia? Four countries for one? I think it's clear that that's unfair. Obviously, I'll have to reject this. It'll also cause asymetric borders, and cut my sea access. You already access many seas, from the English Channel to the Mediterranean. Even if I get Yugoslavia, you'll still have Albania. 2. Also, why? Assuming that you obviously wish no hostility with me, why land access? Isn't navy and transport aircrafts not enough? If a threat arose, I'd obviously help you, as we're no enemies. I'd at least help you access there. But currently there's no threat, so there's no reason for 4 countries (and the RP will likely end soon anyway with Austria gone, says the narrator lol) 3. I'd like to repeat my original offer, and how it benefits you: 1. You'll literally get Germany. It's a pretty developed countries, far more than the ones I'll get. It's alone enough for the glory it gives. Furthermore, you'll get Austria as an addition. 2. You'll have one more factory than me, which is pretty significant. 3. The land you get is directly beside your borders, while mine is far away. So, you'll be already advantageous. 4. You already control many countries, from Portugal to Turkey to all your overseas territory. And get Germany and Austria as the addition. Okay, I will give you all of Yugoslavia, but Slovenia and Montenegro. That's a fair compromise. It's more fair, but still, two countries for one? The only extra country I wanted was Latvia, which I think is fair. But two countries without any compensation, it's not. I don't really want any further territory, I just want proper borders in Balkans (because, well, you know how we somehow always manage to start another war with each other irl lol). Let me repeat my original offer and why I believe it's the best. I repeat, you'll get Germany. First, it's pretty big and economically strong, with a large population. Second, it's just beside your borders, you'll be very advantageous, easily sending your army through it if ever necessary. Third, you'll get six factory thanks to it. Fourth, having Germany is pretty important on its own, compared to Balkans. Fifth, you'll get Austria as a nice addition. You'll have proper borders, easy to defend. Sixth, you'll obviously keep your other military existance in other countries, unlike me. Seventh, you already have many overseas territory in almost every continent. Eighth, in connection with this, you already access many seas. You're the one who rules the seas after Britain. Ninth, Central Europe is quite important both historically and geopolitically, and you'll control it. Tenth, Germany has been one of the main enemies of France, and you'll have it. Just think about it. It's been a traditional threat for the French people, which will, this time, be stopped. I think that's more than fair, and I can keep counting if you want. |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Jul 1, 2023 15:32:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jul 1, 2023 19:09:53 GMT
Okay, I will give you all of Yugoslavia, but Slovenia and Montenegro. That's a fair compromise. It's more fair, but still, two countries for one? The only extra country I wanted was Latvia, which I think is fair. But two countries without any compensation, it's not. I don't really want any further territory, I just want proper borders in Balkans (because, well, you know how we somehow always manage to start another war with each other irl lol). Let me repeat my original offer and why I believe it's the best. I repeat, you'll get Germany. First, it's pretty big and economically strong, with a large population. Second, it's just beside your borders, you'll be very advantageous, easily sending your army through it if ever necessary. Third, you'll get six factory thanks to it. Fourth, having Germany is pretty important on its own, compared to Balkans. Fifth, you'll get Austria as a nice addition. You'll have proper borders, easy to defend. Sixth, you'll obviously keep your other military existance in other countries, unlike me. Seventh, you already have many overseas territory in almost every continent. Eighth, in connection with this, you already access many seas. You're the one who rules the seas after Britain. Ninth, Central Europe is quite important both historically and geopolitically, and you'll control it. Tenth, Germany has been one of the main enemies of France, and you'll have it. Just think about it. It's been a traditional threat for the French people, which will, this time, be stopped. I think that's more than fair, and I can keep counting if you want. Fine, I accept. All French citizens, armed forces, and people under the protection of France in Latvia are evacuated with planes. This will be completed next page. All tanks produced in the small factory of Riga are evacuated through sea escorted by 4 destroyers. They will arrive at Germany in two pages. Our forces on the Maginot Line march into Germany and Austria, and gather at München to await further deployment. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jul 1, 2023 19:29:50 GMT
I messed up with the election, but the result is nevertheless that the National Front emerges victorious and the left wing is replaced by the right. A new government will soon be formed.
Since page 50, our factories have produced 3000 tanks, which are now organised into 6 Armoured Divisions in München. All newly captured factories are ordered to produce tanks expect the factory at Düsseldorf, which will produce bombers. Our current tank production is now 405 per turn. 165,000 troops and 1000 guns from Calais are moved to Rostock as well as 100,000 troops and 100 guns from München. Once there they will board a fleet escorted by 6 destroyers and 6 submarines. The fleet will move to the English Channel. 4 armies (400,000 troops) and an artillery brigade (1,000 guns) occupy the border with Poland and start entrenching and reinforcing the border, this is purely a defensive action. All other forces in München are moved to Salzburg.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Jul 1, 2023 20:14:25 GMT
I'll post my new deployment when I'm available, but before I prepare it, Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov, how much recruitments do we have in the end? We had recruitment for a short while in the beginning, and more recently with Warlord's rules, so it's become a bit complicated. How much exactly have we recruited in the end, or which ones do we count now? Btw, all of our factories (including Bucharest, Belgrade, Budapest, and Cluj-Napoca?) will start producing 390 tanks from now on, which'll be sent to our army in Romania until our next order. |
|
). 
