Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
The Treaty of San Diego was a proposal by the Union of Borealia to establish a political and social compromise between the members of the New Munich Pact and the Commonwealth of Germany. The main intention of this treaty was to resolve the apparent contradiction between the New Munich Declaration and the 1775 Union Referendum (don't know the actual name). By resolving this contradiction, this will prevent anything akin to the Second War of the Grand Coalition (also known as the Hamburger War or the German Colonial War) from ever occurring in the future.
Concessions of the NMP
The Commonwealth German States that exist within the geographical boundaries of the New World (New Hamburg, New Brunswick, Kuba, Belize, and New Nordeny) will be recognized as integral parts of the German Commonwealth, and sovereign territory of the united nation of Germany. They will be considered de jure states of Europe, and therefore the New Munich Pact will not be obligated to remove German control from these states. In addition, these German states will be considered honorary members of the New Munich Pact, and therefore will be defended by other members of the Pact if these states are threatened by any other colonial power.
Concessions of the UCG
A permanent nationalist party must continually exist within each of the aforementioned states (New Hamburg, New Brunswick, Kuba, Belize, and New Nordeny). These organizations will act as independent entities (mod controlled), but will retain all of the same rights and privileges as citizens of the German Commonwealth. They will also receive non-monetary support from a central organization located
in Borealia in a neutral country , as well as any other member of the New Munich Pact. A referendum must be held regularly within each of these states to ascertain whether a majority desire independence or annexation by another nation. In addition, the philosophy of Borealianism must be taught in public schools on the continent with equal validity to alternate political theories.
Mutual Alliance Between the NMP and the UCG
All members of the New Munich Pact will defend the Commonwealth of Germany, and all of her constituent states within the geographical boundaries of Borealia and Hesperia, and all sovereign waters within the Atlantic Ocean in between. This will not, however, obligate the members of New Munch to defend any threat to German colonies, states, or protectorates outside of this region, or withhold acting against a perceived threat thereof.
Likewise, the Commonwealth of Germany will defend the members of the New Munich Pact from aggression originating from any other colonial power, as well as aid the Pact in the process of enforcing the New Munich Declaration by liberating any other colony within the geographical boundaries of the continent of Borealia. This will not, however, obligate Germany to be involved with any war between the members of the New Munich Pact, or withhold acting against any apparent threat thereof.
Both entities will pledge mutual military aid, but not necessarily to any third-party nation allied to either a member of New Munich or a state, protectorate, or colony of Germany.
The United Commonwealth of Germany accepts the proposal to have nationalist parties in the enclaves (there has always been), but puts forwards that the law bans any political party running for office from receiving foreign donations or support. If said parties do accept it, they are disqualified, and their candidates are removed from the ballot. Germany also put forward an offer to hold a referendum upon the event that these nationalist parties become the ruling party in their region. The Commonwealth Kingdoms (will need input from other members) are aversive to the mandated teaching of "Borealianism", noting the long presence of the philosophy in the enclaves. I am that guy (talk) 17:06, June 12, 2015 (UTC)
The Union of Borealia clarifies that these nationalist organizations should not be individual and separate, but mere chapters of an international organization whose headquarters is located outside of the enclaves. Borealia accepts that support from a foreign government should be forbidden, but such an international organization should require at least the human resources from outside the enclaves, from purely private organizations with no affiliation to Borealia, Germany, or any other nation. Borealia also puts forward that the regular referendum should determine whether the majority of the population is favorable to either independence or annexation inclusively, regardless of whether the nationalist party itself is dominant. Nathan1123 (talk) 21:44, June 12, 2015 (UTC)
As much as Germany appreciates Borealias willingness to make a treaty, Germany will not agree to, nor will it tolerate, an international organization supporting separatist parties in the sovereign territories of its constituent states. As for the referendums, the German states will be willing to organize them if/when the local governments call for one. -Michael Füdao, Foreign Minister for Friedrich von Güstrow, Chancellor of Germany. I am that guy (talk) 20:52, June 13, 2015 (UTC) Algonquia points out that Germany cannot expect New Munich to make massive concessions while offering none of its own. Given the mob rule and violence that has been shown to predominate in German politics, nationalist parties would likely be destroyed or marginalized by government-sanctioned violence if some legal protection was not given to them. In Hamburg, for example, dissidents are routinely brutally killed. This type of violent, majoritarian politics could be used to prevent any referendums from ever occurring or control their outcome, regardless of actual popular will. As a result, some assurance that these referendums will actually occur, and occur fairly, is essential, and this treaty provides that. Shikata ga nai! 21:01, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
- Germany points out that those killed were spies attempting to incite revolt, and Poland (the one sending the spies) has been repeatedly sent demands for them to stop. Nationalist parties have long existed in the territories, and have never been marginalized. I am that guy (talk) 21:06, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
My problem with the demands is that it's essentially like the Soviet Union demanding that a Communnist party staffed and funded by the Comintern be set up in Alaska, and that referendums be held regularly on whether Alaska wants to become communist/a member of the USSR. It simply wouldn't happen in the real world. My other qualm is how such a referendum would actually play out in-game. Would it be merely an RNG? And if so, how would that take into account the very strenuous efforts of the German governments to keep the citizens of their Borealian territories happy through representation and investment? Besides, wouldn't better concessions be a perpetual free trade agreement or something along those lines? Isn't Germany pledging to defend NMP states from any foreign aggression something of a concession already? Anyway, these are just my thoughts, (and sorry to post OOC) Callumthered (talk) 00:37, June 14, 2015 (UTC)
I would like to think that we don't pose any threat to your colonies like the Soviet Union did to America, and even though it is not usually the subject of treaties, such organizations did and do exist OTL. In game, the New Munich Declaration has run into contradiction with the constituent states of Germany. The reason I am making these concessions is not because I need anything from you, but because I'm trying to find some sort of compromise. As it is, I'm giving up quite a lot to meet you half way, so I hoped you may be reasonable and compromise on something. As for the referendums (and everything else for that matter), so long as it's plausibly written into the enclaves I really don't care how you do it. Nathan1123 (talk) 03:55, June 14, 2015 (UTC)
We'll be willing to accept a pernament nationalist party (again, these have long existed, just never being popular), and a referendum provided the local government calls for one. Again, Germany will not agree to an international organization funding political parties within its constituent territories, as it violates election law. Honorary NMP membership will be discussed between the constituent states of Germany. I am that guy (talk) 22:41, June 14, 2015 (UTC)
You're offering virtually no changes from the status quo in exchange for massive concessions, including a partial repudiation of the New Munich Declaration in recognizing the legitimacy of Germany holding land in Borealia at all. Given Germany's predisposition toward violence toward political minorities, like Communists, some legal protection for nationalist parties, and some international oversight to ensure they aren't simply destroyed by mob violence, is important. Likewise, the threat of mob violence deters people from offering funding or support to minority parties, meaning an international source of funding to ensure they can function on the same level as "government-approved" parties is essential. Shikata ga nai! 00:18, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
Heinrik Paks, Bavarian Secretary of State, laughs at the Borealian proposals, and provides a brief list of things he finds completely wrong:
- Foreign governments funding and supporting political parties is completely illegal.
- You obviously don't understand. No governments are getting involved. This would be funding (primarily not monetary) from a private organization only.
- Borealinism is not a valid school of thought. It is nationalism through and through and should be taught as such. Thus, it has no place in formal schooling for children.
- Borealianism is a philosophy/school of anthropology and has been long before nationalism existed. Refusal to teach it is clearly a form of censorship and the main reason why Borealianist parties are suppressed in the enclaves.
- Paks is tired of all this talk about "concessions" and the need to make them. Germany does not need to do anything, and in fact, can abandon this treaty.
- Obviously you can, as neither the NMP nor the UGC have any obligation for each other. However, in the interest of creating a formal alliance between us, Borealia offers a comprimise in which both parties concedes part of their goals in the interest of friendship. If Germany wishes to alienate itself from the New World, that is its own prerogative. Borealia, however, would rather these differences be resolved diplomatically.
- In the opinion of Paks, this Treaty does not benefit Germany in any way, and seems to be a ploy for more Borealian expansion, and recommends that his Hamburgian and Oldenburger counterparts ditch efforts in trying to save it.
- It benefits Germany by preventing a re-occurrence of the German Colonial War, and ensures that the NMP would be obligated to protect the enclaves as long as they are part of Germany, as well as Germany itself. Far from being a ploy, it prevents any further expansion of Borealia or any other member of the NMP. The fact that Germany considers these terms tantamount to losing the enclaves is an obvious sign that Germany is actively preventing these states from deciding their own destiny.
Algonquia proposes that, since differences over the political parts of the Treaty (i.e. the first two parts) seem irreconcilable, the treaty be restricted to a mutual alliance, without political concessions from either side. Algonquia also reminds Germany that treaties, and negotiations in general, are based around the concept of compromise ; in other words, giving something up in return for the other side doing the same. Shikata ga nai! 02:02, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
Rather than bending to the demands of Germany, who obviously have no interest in the affairs of this hemisphere, Borealia puts forward these clarifications:
- Funding a political party from a foreign government should be illegal ('should be' as international law has not been invented, thus rendering any supposed scandal moot anyway). However, this has nothing to do with the proposed treaty. The request is that the nationalist parties be connected by a private organization located outside of the enclaves.
- Borealianism is a philosophy, and has been the dominant philosophical view for most of this continent for 150 years. Therefore, it should be given equal credence to any other philosophy imported from distant Europe.
- This treaty would not help Borealia or any other nation expand. In fact, it renders the NMP impenitent to expand any further and prevents the values of the NMP from ever being realized. If you consider such a sacrifice to be a ploy, then what exactly would expect us to concede?
- Germany has no obligation to make concessions any more than Borealia does. However, Borealia is willing to bend over backwards to ensure peace between our nations and prevent any further conflicts in the future. If this is not the goal of Germany, then that is their decision.
But, see, what Oldenburg can't get over is the concept that Borealia is somehow giving anything up. It appears to Oldenburg's delegates that Borealia is offering a recognition of the geopolitical situation as it is and has been, in return for Germany allowing a shadowy "International Organisation" (based in and no doubt funded by Borealia) to run Parties in our self-governing colonies whose sole aim is the destruction of German sovereignity in the New World to the benefit of Borealia. How is this a "compromise"? Borealia is offering nothing but recognition of the actual state of national borders, as far as Oldenburg can see, and demanding a whole world of concessions from Germany. Perhaps it is Borealia who should be advised as to the meaning of negotiation and compromise. We do, however, agree with Algonquia, and believe the treaty should consist of mutual acceptance of the current borders and a non aggression pact. Callumthered (talk) 03:26, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
But the issue there is that Germany currently represses these parties, like it does with Communists. It's difficult for parties to function properly with government disapproval, especially when this takes the form of sanctioned mob violence. If you think that a foreign organization funding political parties or the teaching of a certain ideology is likely to result in loss of control over colonies, clearly these parties are being very much repressed, to th point where even a small amount of additional resources will allow them to win. If Germany's colonies are indeed as happy as it makes out, Germany has nothing to lose by signing the treaty. Shikata ga nai! 10:59, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
That's like saying "if Western capitalist democracy is so strong, why didn't the Australian Government let the Soviet Union/Comintern fund a communist party?" Or "why don't Western governments allow the Muslim Brotherhood to fund radical Islamist parties in the West?" The answer to both questions is obvious: because both parties espouse ideas so antithetical to the ideologies of the relevant countries. That's not to say Communist parties did not exist in Australia during the Cold War, they did. And although they did exist, since the values of the party were antithetical to those of the vast majority of the Australian population, they did not gain much traction. But can you see why the Australian government wouldn't want the Soviet Union or Comintern funding them. Likewise, whilst Radical Islamist parties in the West (if any exist) would not ever gain any more than a token following in Western countries, you can no doubt understand or sympathise with the West's opposition to external funding of them. Now let's compare these examples to the current situation. Borealianism holds that European nations "no longer deserve to hold their colonies" due to some sort of pseudo-scientific argument that Europeans are predisposed towards "greed, exploitation, and imperialism" (this from a nation which engages in wars to gain land, and which has actively colonised the Pacific, but moving on). So essentially, Borealianism holds that the German territories in the New World are anomalies which must be erased from the map. This is antithetical to the very existence of those territories, and their democratically-elected governments. (Indeed, it is antithetical to the concept of democracy and self-determination. What Borealia is arguing is that it is giving the peoples of the territories self-determination by "enlightening" them with the wisdom of (essentially xenophobic) Borealian philosophy, as it is only through Borealianism that true freedom can be achieved. This ignores the democratic choice of the New World Germans to remain within the German nation.) Is it not therefore logical that any external funding of parties which hold ideologies so antithetical to the existence and way of life of the German territories can in no way be tolerated? If it is logical in the above two scenarios, how is it illogical in the case at hand? And then, of course, there is the flawed premise that Germany suppresses nationalist parties. You literally made that up. You would be hard-pressed to find any mention-in an Oldenburger post at least- of any suppression of nationalist parties in Neu Norderney (or, for that matter, much mention of Neu Norderney party politics at all) Callumthered (talk) 13:27, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
Borealianism is not antithetical to Germany's interest, but has been one of the most beneficial aspect of any enclave in Germany for the last 150 years. If you are really going to treat us like the Soviet Union or the Muslim Brotherhood, then obviously you don't wish to be our ally, and there's no need for negotiation. After all, why negotiate with terrorists? However, Borealia hoped that Germany would be reasonable to find common ground where both parties will compromise on their ideals. Borealia, Algonquia, Reme and Mexaca renounce all claims to the enclaves which would otherwise lead to further colonial wars (as has been going on). Borealia would rather turn that around and have these countries protect the enclaves and ensure that they remain part of Germany continuously. For some inexplicable reason, Germany doesn't desire this.
In response to Oldenburg, nationalist parties have never been mentioned, which is tantamount to saying they're being repressed, because they would exist in a free society, as OTL illustrates amply. There's never been a colony that didn't have some groups or individuals who desired independence. Let's not forget that Neu Norderney and Neu Juist are built on the stolen hunting grounds from the Innu and Beothuk, whoa re one significant group that would want independence. But as Nathan said, the NMP is offering to recognize the legitimacy of this, and even protect these colonies from other powers. In return, you're being asked to give some additional freedoms to nationalist parties - this doesn't mean the loss of these lands, and indeed it would strengthen your hold on them, because the countries that provide an example for these nationalists would support Germany's possession of these lands. If you think that this kind of request is tantamount to terrorism ... there's clearly not a lot of room for compromise. Also, Germany is welcome to fund political parties in Algonquia if it so desires. Shikata ga nai! 15:21, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
The statement that Germany is repressing political parties is fundamentally flawed. The only individuals disapproved of by the government are the spies sent by the communist states to try stir up revolt. Your statement of "stolen" land is sharply hypocritical as Algonquia violently conquered a peaceful republic and murdered or expelled equally peaceful Arcadians, many of who had families living in the area for centuries. In any case, Cal has a point in saying that the NMP is really doing much in the ways of its terms. Recognition in return for honorary NMP membership would be possible in a case by case basis, possibly after a player controlled referendum on the latter. Still, however, an international organization funding and supporting specific separatist groups and parties, will not be agreed to. I am that guy (talk) 22:24, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
Kras, that doesn't make sense. I haven't mentioned nationalist parties because I've barely mentioned anything about Neu Norderney politics. I also haven't mentioned poultry production in my turns, that doesn't mean Oldenburg doesn't produce chickens.
Nathan, we clearly do want to work together and ensure an enduring peace on Borealia and the survival of our territories, otherwise we wouldn't still be here. We have said on numerous occasions that we are perfectly happy to have nationalist parties in the territories (since they already exist). We have also said that we will hold referendums whenever the peoples of the territories wish it. Our only concern is having the external group funding the parties. You clearly have purposefully misconstrued my examples of above. We do not think your nations are terrorists. But if you look at Borealianism as it is defined on the Borealia nation page, it clearly says that a key tenet of the philosophy is that Europeans do not deserve to hold territory in the New World. Naturally we are very pleased and thankful that you and the other New World powers are willing enough to turn around and recognise their right to existence. The problem remains, however, that the international organisation you wish to have fund our political parties would still be spreading that message if, indeed, it is spreading the message of Borealianism. It cannot be in doubt that that tenaet is antithetical to the existence of the territories, since it literally says they should not exist. This is the key problem as I see it. Callumthered (talk) 23:01, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
I understand that that is where you currently stand. However, that doesn't provide any compromise since the only part you agree on is already in existence. Now, if you made a counter-proposal for something equally valuable, then I would definitely consider it. However, you refuse to change the status quo in the enclaves at all. Since the only part you agree on already exist, that suggests that you are not willing to give up on anything. Thus, until you make a compromise that is more reasonable, there is nothing else that can be negotiated on.Nathan1123 (talk) 23:32, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
I'd argue that the promise of referendums amounts to some sort of concession, but anyway. Do you have any ideas as to alternative concessions you would find sufficient? What about de-militarisation? Trade deals? Free navigation? What about what I've doing for the Beothuk in recent years in response to Algonquian concerns for Beothuk welfare (creating an autonomous region governed by Beothuk laws)? Is that sort of thing relevant?
How about, in return for not having the external-funding of the parties and not teaching Borealianism in schools, the NMP isn't obliged to defend the territories, merely recognise them and leave them be? Your only obligation would be to recognise and never attack (or assist an attack on) the territories, whilst we would hold referendums, endeavour to improve the lot of the locals, and recognise the NMP's rights to the rest (ie non-German bits) of the New World continents. It's just a random idea. Callumthered (talk) 01:52, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
I didn't ask for any of that because, unlike Germany, Borealia is self-sufficient. We offer to protect the enclaves from attack as a further concession to compensate for any concessions on Germany's part.
This treaty concerns the enclaves and nothing else. So any concession from Germany must change the status quo in the enclaves in some way. If you consider our proposal harmful, then propose some other change in the enclaves else which is equally effective for Borealia, but not harmful for Germany.
The referendum is not as effective because a) there is no guarantee that a loyalist-run state will suddenly "decide" to hold a referendum, and b) if it ever does take place, will always be in your favor when independence philosophy (which you consider so harmful) is actively censored. Therefore, the referendum must be a regular, popular vote, and actions must be taken to ensure that independence philosophy (which is prevalent everywhere else in the continent) will never be unavailable.Nathan1123 (talk) 15:01, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
That's the point. You offered to protect the territories as a concession to compensate for our concessions. We take away one of our concessions, it only makes sense that you too get to take away a concession.
That's not what I said. I didn't say we would pledge to hold a referendum when the territories decided, I said we would pledge to hold a referendum. This treaty would be the guarantee. And for the last time, we do not repress or censor Borealisnism. Our only concern is having the parties externally funded. Besides, to use Kras' argument from before, if your philosophy is so strong, why do you need to fund parties espousing it?
It would appear from your protestations that the only agreement you will be willing to accept is one where German sovereignity is guaranteed to be ended soon in the future. If that is so, then there cannot, to my mind, be an agreement. But if not, what about this counter-proposal is so terrible? It leaves you having to make next to no concessions. Callumthered (talk) 21:43, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
That's the issue. If you're making no concessions, and I'm making no concessions, then there's no point. And if that's the only deal you're making, then you're making no deal.
OOC: like I said before, I as a player have no intention of controlling these parties, so at best it only increases the likeliness of Germany losing their colonies (but most probably doesn't). If they are, as implausible as it is, continually loyal to Germany, then it shouldn't make any difference.
Since you offer nothing else, I will graciously once again try to give you more. Suppose that the nationalist parties cannot be funded from outside, but are nonetheless directed by a central organization located in a neutral country, not affiliated with Borealia or Germany.Nathan1123 (talk) 21:59, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
The point, as you have frequently said, is avoiding another war. Not going to war is a passive act. All that the avoidance of war requires is each side doing nothing. And if the avoidance of war truly is the aim, then would it not be best to do so with the least effort?
Just out of interest, how is it so majorly implausible that colonies remain loyal? What about Canada, Australia, New Zealand? They remained loyal. It is never a fait accompli that colonies (which are self-governing) will be disloyal and wish total independence through any means.
I don't know precisely what the point of such an umbrella organisation would be, but I guess in theory if it's not funding the parties, there shouldn't be a huge problem. (Also, not really sure how you're conceding anything by doing that, it's not like the parties currently get any funding from this organisation, so at best you're conceding a hypothetical future right). But I do think that's a more acceptable proposal, by far. Callumthered (talk) 01:13, June 17, 2015 (UTC)
The point is not "not going to war", the point is avoiding war. The war was caused by a conflict of ideologies. Thus, to prevent war would be for both sides to find compromise where neither of their ideologies are satisfied. I concede that my ideology is not going to be satisfied, you should likewise alter the status quo similarly. In spite of your obstinance, however, I am willing to give you leeway.