Alternative History
Register
Advertisement

Creating the Article[]

Ownerzcowm, I created the page and added a few basic things. Change anything you want. We need to decide on all the things in the infobox that have question marks, along with the organization's structure and membership. Caeruleus 04:50, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

A quick heads up, I'm keeping Georgia, Sicily, and Ossetia out of this one. Arstar 05:04, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me.

Here's a possible map for the early members:

MDLMembers

MDL Members

Caeruleus 05:47, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arstar about Ossetia and Georgia, and I will say here and now that none of the other nations in that area will be joining either.

Lordganon 07:07, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

What about Rhodope and Transylvania joining LG? Ownerzmcown 21:20, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Not happening either. Lordganon 21:44, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

I understand why Rhodope wouldn't join, but I can't see a reason for Transylvania, I understand they have good relations with Greece, but also somewhat with Macedonia, and Macedonia and the other members of the MDL would strongly oppose Serbia and support Transylvania's claims in Serbia. Ownerzmcown 21:52, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

I repeat: It's not happening. Lordganon 21:59, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then as Transylvania's operator, I will respect your decision. Ownerzmcown

Much obliged. Lordganon 22:01, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Now, for the HQ, it would probably be in Turkey, as it would seem safer compared to Macedonia, or any of the other options. Ownerzmcown 22:03, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Konya, Bolvadin, Gaziantep, or Ankara (which is only partially rebuilt) would make good HQ locations.
As for membership, other than the members listed on the map above Croatia, Slovenia, and Israel would be invited as observers with a possibility of membership, though Israel probably wouldn't. Whether they accept that invitation is up to them. Al Jazeera might join. The MDL would attempt to woo Crimea into joining due to their strategic position, but I not sure they would do to their relatively neutral stance. Although if Crimea joined, the Don Republic and Kuban People's Republic would probably become open to it. Beyond those countries, I don't see many others joining. Caeruleus 23:03, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Vlad wants Croatia and Slovenia in the ADC, you you may as well quit that, lol. And Once again, the Cauacus nations will not be joining, at all. Not Crimea, not Don, not Kuban, not any. Lordganon 11:43, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
And why won't they be joining? Caeruleus 21:10, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
Caer, you fail to remember who controls said articles. I have plans for them, and my own paths for them, which do not include this at all. They will not join, and that is final. Lordganon 07:15, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

The answer I was looking for was an explanation of those plans, but whatever. Caeruleus 21:34, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Croatia & Slovenia[]

Although I'm flattered by the offer, I must respectfully decline. Croatia and Slovenia would most likely join the ADC and are petitioning them as we speak. As observers perhaps, but I think the current political climate would be against such a thing.--Vladivostok 21:54, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

So they can be observers, it makes since because of the current situation with Serbia. Ownerzmcown 22:12, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well, consider this my "wooing" of Croatia and Slovenia. If it doesn't change your mind, oh well. The benefits of joining the MDL versus the ADC for Croatia and Slovenia are:

Croatia and Slovenia would have a a platform of support to regain control of the territory they lost to Venice, which wouldn't happen as a member of the Alpine-allied ADC.
Members of the MDL are geographically closer to Croatia and Slovenia and would be more easily be able to assist in any war they would be involved in.
It will surround Serbia, which would prevent Serbian aggression.
It will enhance economic ties with much of the region.

Btw, just regarding their intentions, why would Croatia and Slovenia want to join an organization that's nominally allied to a country that force them to give up their territory? Caeruleus 23:25, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Caer, your beginning to start a new Cold War with ADC vs. Turkey and multiple people have agreed with me that its becoming very stressing. I told you this months ago but you've seem to have forgotten so I will tell you again, pick your enemies wisely. Alpinia (not a member of the ADC) did take territory, but just being in a political union (or allied to one) doesn't mean everyone has to like each other, hell, look at the EU.

Also be frankly honest I don't see how the MDL would have any benefits over the ADC because the ADC is the one with the most powerful members, and essentially all of the surviving NATO equippment. As of now the members for this organization are Macedonia of the Non-Aligned Movement and Turkey (which was a NATO country, where was the disconnect?). Plus the ADC is allied with the ANZC and the SAC so any encroachment on ADC territory, let's just put it at it wouldn't be a happy bedtime story. Arstar 00:19, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

I kinda agree with Arstar on this one, maybe we should soften up on Croatia and Slovenia. If they want to be in the ADC, let them be in the ADC. Ownerzmcown 00:31, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

This is not the pre-Doomsday world. The ADC is just one actor in a theater where many new actors will arise. I'm not trying to start a new cold war. I'm plotting a new, hopefully more interesting, direction. Frankly, you people are too idealistic. All of Europe is not just going to join the ADC and be peaceful and happy. Each country has its own interests which it can freely pursue due to the lack of overbearing superpowers. Turkey, for example, is primarily interested in regaining all of its pre-Doomsday territory. This means war, or major diplomatic discussions at least, with Greece, Trabzon, and Kurdistan, which obviously places it at odds with those countries and their allies. Other countries, such as Rhodope and Vidin or North Germany and Prussia, have similar objectives and will pursue them via similar means. There are going to be new wars, conflicts, and international disputes. Just because I realize this doesn't mean I'm starting a new cold war.

Also, I'm not trying to make the MDL anti-ADC. I'm guiding it towards what any regional defense organization would want to do, achieve regional dominance and expand its membership. The MDL can't dominate the eastern Mediterranean if more countries join the ADC now can it? And Owner, we're lobbying them to join, that's all. Doing otherwise would be unrealistic.

And the SAC certainly isn't an ally of the ADC. Brazil hates Greece for its imperialism and all South American nations would follow foreign policies similar to OTL, which is: help where they can, promote peace through diplomacy, and don't interfere in others' domestic affairs. That basically means cordial relations with the ADC, but no alliance.

Caeruleus 00:52, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Caer, I don't think you ever put this up as a proposal on the 83:DD talk page, so it can't be graduated as of yet. So this is not a canon article as you call it in the 83:DD main page. Fedelede 00:59, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

I think that keeping them as observers may be the most likely situation at this point, you can continues discussion on this topic, irregardless of what I say. Also Caer, can you check the Albania talk page, I want you to see the comment I made about the map. Ownerzmcown 01:09, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

The question is why form an organization in an area where a stronger one exists? The Mediterranian is pretty much the backyard of half the ADC. Arstar 01:16, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Fedelede, I listed it as a proposal on the talk page the other day. It's also on the main 1983DD page now.
If Vlad agrees, make them observers.
Arstar, you misunderstand the differing interests of the nations involved. The ADC is stronger, but it still isn't that strong. And more importantly, these nations could join the ADC, but it provides no benefit to them. Most of the ADC is in the North Atlantic, far away from the eastern Mediterranean, and most of the MDL nations have negative or minimal relations with Greece, the only major ADC member in the Mediterranean. In addition, Bosnia, Turkey, and Macedonia share the common goal of reacquiring what they view as their territory, which they wouldn't be able to pursue as part of the ADC. Nations don't join organizations unless they can provide a tangible benefit to them. Joining the ADC provides no tangible benefit to any current member of the MDL and, in my opinion, provides a debatable benefit to other nations in the area. Caeruleus 01:25, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
We have Spain, Greece, Corsica, Rif, and Tuscany all in the Mediterranean, plus the Italian Peninsula Alliance which is pretty much ADC's ally in every way and will likely join the ADC as a whole. Macedonia is claiming land that wasn't there's to begin with and and Bosnia wouldn't be joining with a country that stole their land. In real life just because America hates one bad country and, say, France likes it, are we going to condemn France for liking and aiding that one country?
Also, how are they going to reacquire that territory, Caer? War? Spain and the Celtic Alliance both have nukes left over plus there's 100 other ways to blow up cities that they can do so pick your enemies wisely. The Nordic Union have the resources to pretty much make enough bullets and ammunition for just about everyone. Greece has the advantage of being pointed directly at the heart of the East Mediterranean, North Germany has willing fighters, and etc. Plus, I don't know what your deal with shipping everything a thousand miles at most, because that's been going on for about a few hundred years now between countries in a much poorer state than many post-DD states. Arstar 05:33, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

The whole lot of you need to calm down.

As Vlad has said, he doubts that even being observers would work out for the two nations. He also has them as being quite peaceful in nature, if you will remember. As they are his articles, you need to respect his wishes. And this arguing is not doing that.

Lordganon 07:18, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

After reading the discussion and after some deliberation, I think I'll leave the two neutral for the time being. The ADC membership application will be retracted to an observer status only. Perhaps observer status with the MDL, but I really do want to see how this plays out, both in the TL and in OTL. By OTL I mean whether or not the article is graduated. In TTL I refer to the fact that there was some talk of lending support to Sicily, for which Slovenia and Croatia do not show any interest, one way or the other. The only political problems they face are with Venice and the ADC and are not about to go to war for that either.

However, if ther was a war with Serbia, then by all means they would be in an alliance with anyone willing to lend aid. Of course, seeing as how the Serbia article is playing out, I doubt that such a scenario would play out any time soon.--Vladivostok 08:31, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Arstar, actually the answer to your example is yes. See China and Sudan as an example. And countries claim land that was never theirs or hasn't been for centuries all the time, so that's an irrelevant point. As for reclaiming territory, yes war is an option, as I said before. Nationalism is very strong in these countries and they are all democracies so at some point they may be forced to go to war to satisfy popular opinion. Also, being allied with other strong countries in a region puts you in a better bargaining position if territory was to be exchanged through peaceful negotiations. And if you were to introduce nuclear weapons to the equation, the entire world would turn against the ADC simply because they used them and they would probably be nuked by other countries, like Turkey's ally Israel for example, in retaliation. So whether the solution is peaceful or not, there are advantages being offered.

Croatia and Slovenia will be identified as applicants for observer status then. Caeruleus 21:34, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

God dammit could you stop trying to point the whole fucking world against Greece? One Brazilian politician thought Greece was imperialistic, that doesn't mean the government officially is anti-Greece in any way whatsoever-if one politician determines what their respective country as a whole's ideologies are, the United States would be a Holocaust-denying, social-welfare, secular state with traditional Protestant-values: it doesn't make sense! Mr.Xeight 21:49, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Xeight, please calm down.

Caer, what did I say? You need to calm down and quit doing this. Xeight is right about your attempts, and quite frankly they are getting old.

Lordganon 23:29, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

I was never not calm...

And I explained this earlier. At this point, this has little to do with Greece. Yes, I used to have problems with the article itself and was very vocal about that. LG and Oerwinde have done an excellent job of expanding on the original article, so that's no longer an issue for me. Now, this is about what would be Turkey's post-Doomsday foreign policy and strategic vision, since I'm trying to make this as realistic as possible. Historically, whenever Greece has been strong, Turkey has been weak and vice versa. Greece controls the Turkish straits, Rhodes, and southwest Turkey. Not only were all these areas (except Rhodes) were part of pre-Doomsday Turkey and, more importantly, are very strategic areas. Whoever controls the Turkish Straits essentially controls the Black Sea and whoever controls Rhodes/southwest Turkey controls naval access to much of the Turkish coast and a vital sea outlet. Turkey, obviously, would want to reclaim these areas through any means necessary, which include both war and diplomacy. The reason this is "about Greece" as you say is because Greece would, realistically, be Turkey's obsession because they both control territory that was previously theirs and control areas that are critically important to Turkey's strategic goals. Like all nations throughout history, they act in accordance to their geopolitical and strategic interests, which is what I have Turkey doing. Caeruleus 00:16, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

It's about tone, Caer.

I do agree that Turkey would have itself directed against Greece in many cases, and I am glad to see you finally say that it's not an issue anymore. But it seems like each and every single thing you do around here is against Greece, and you do it repeatedly. That's what is getting old.

At any rate, this is not the time nor the place for this.

Lordganon 00:47, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

That's probably because all I talk about is Turkey and my plans for Turkey's future, which pretty much all would include something about Greece. But yes, this is not the place. Feel free to comment on other things though. Caeruleus 00:52, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Egypt will not be interested in joining anytime in the near future--Smoggy80 19:59, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Okay...thanks for opting out? Caeruleus 20:29, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Caer, what Vlad said is that he "wanted to see how this all plays out." Not that they were applying. Remove it. Lordganon 09:03, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Structure[]

Owner, how do you want this organization structured? We can base it off of the OTL examples of NATO, the Warsaw Pact, CSTO, or SCO. Or we could make up the organizational structure ourselves. What do you think? Caeruleus 00:29, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

The idea I have concieved is annual or bi-annual meetings of the member's heads of state to discuss the military and defense policies for the MDL and its members, and probably a meeting of high-ranking military officers from each nation to create a kind of MDL General Staff. Also, joint military exercises would be likely, and in times of war each country would devote either part or all of its military strength to create a Coalition force. Ownerzmcown 01:22, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good so far. Do you want to maintain any permanent structures, other than the MDL General Staff? Caeruleus 01:33, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
What about a permanent MDL Training Command Structure that uses officers from all member nations to train troops of the member states and their allies or groups their supporting. Ownerzmcown 01:41, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I also think we should have some sort of permanent diplomat-type civilian group that leads the organization. Caeruleus 01:51, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Perfect, I believe it should be called the Mediterranean Defense League Security Council, or something along those lines. Ownerzmcown 01:55, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

That name is fine by me. Any other structures? Training, Leadership, General Staff, and Heads of State are covered. There will be a Secretary-General who would be a permanent leader, along with a Deputy Secretary-General. Anything else? Caeruleus 01:59, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
I think Secretary-General sounds good and the selection process should be he/she is nominated by a member of the Security Council and then seconded by another member and then the council votes on the person and a majority vote wins it. Ownerzmcown 02:03, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Caeruleus 02:05, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

I added what we just discussed. If you don't like it, change it. Now we just need to fill in the names of the various representatives and decide on the military command structure and subsequent agencies. Caeruleus 02:26, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

For the Secretary-General and Deputy Secretary-General, how long should their terms be and which countries should have which position? I'm thinking 2 years for the terms with Turkey and Macedonia have the SG and Deputy SG positions. Which has which is up to you. Caeruleus 02:58, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

2 years sound about right, and I think Turkey should have the SG position for now because it has the largest military currently and Macedonia is the next behind them. Ownerzmcown 22:29, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'll post the SG then. Caeruleus 23:04, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Flag[]

Just a few flags, any you like just point them out.--Sunkist- 05:41, December 16, 2010 (UTC)


I think you're my new favorite person. I like the fourth one, but what's with the mini-star hanging around with the top right star? Caeruleus 20:27, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

I also like the fourth one the best. Ownerzmcown 22:26, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Can someone who knows how add it to the infobox? I failed :/ Caeruleus 23:19, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Never let it be said I dont do anything for you around here, lol. Slipped it in for you.

Problem was that image goes with the flags, etc. for this template, while there's a separate map one.

Note that the order of the map and flag is a template thing, not much can be done about it.

Lordganon 05:26, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Caeruleus 07:47, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement