[OOC] Precipice of War - We Write Under The Sign Of The Goat

[zombieaccount]

Which reminds me to ask. If Colombia tries to annex panama as a military junta in the early sixties, how fucked is Colombia when the fallout of this action hits? Mainly since I think Colombia under the right conditions may have a military dictator who believes they could get away with the land grab while america is occupied with Canada and Florida. Militarily Colombia seems pretty shit, but organized enough they might try to make a land grab for what was a province of their country just a several decades earlier. And I need a reason for the Colombian government to degrade into even more of a timocracy.

[Dinh AaronMk]

PoW isn't the type of RP where you can sign up with one nation already dominating another. Only in certain circumstances has this been a thing, in particular Serbia where they were originally drawn with borders that included the stuff Duck claims.

[zombieaccount]

I asked how fucked Colombia would be if it tried in this world, not if it was possible. I know that the second The United States notices Colombia will lose horribly and any occupying forces being forced out of Colombia. I just want to know what the US of this world would do in response to such action so I can explore the consequences of it.

[Pepperm1nts]

I don't know if the US would have cared enough to join, especially if it happened during their conflict with Canada. The US was isolationist for a lot longer in PoW. They may have condemned the attacks and it may have damaged relations with the US, as well as with other South American nations, but it's not guaranteed the US would have become involved. Ask Byrd, though. As for relations with Panama.. well, obviously they wouldn't take kindly to it. But I don't think Panama would be able to retaliate. I did some quick research and their military history can be described as 'non-existent'. It's more likely other South American nations would have done something about it.

[zombieaccount]

Doesn't america still have control over the Panama Canal in this timeline? I looked at the maps and it pointed the Panama Canal as US controlled. Even when isolationist I imagine the US would not want Colombia touching the canal, after all the U.S. Made panama independent to make that canal in the first place. However if the U.S. Doesn't have control over the canal or is really that isolationist even there than I'll need to ask Mihndar what brazil would do.

[Vilageidiotx]

@vilageidiotx <Snipped quote> Hold up just a goddamn second. In every single one of those examples, the loser in the strong invader. That is not what happened in PoW. In PoW, the loser was the strong defender, and the winner, somehow, was the weak invader. The defender in this case is also educated and at least well-armed, where the defender is under-armed, under-manned and with a population that is not as well educated. Not to mention the defender has the automatic advantage of being home, where most people will support the defense Literally the only thing the invader has going for it in this case is the made-up disadvantage of the defender's leadership being incompetent. But holy hell, how incompetent do you have to be to let this happen? And, like.. really, where the hell are the country's educated people? They're just sitting somewhere while all these weak states pick away at their nation? They're like "well our sultan was stupid so there's nothing we can do now that he's FUCKING GONE." In your examples, it was weak, highly uneducated guerrilla fighters successfully fighting off major powers. So why can't a, let's say 'decent', moderately educated nation that is at least partially industrialized, well-armed and at the very goddamn least more organized than just any guerrilla group having trouble stopping all these weak nations from picking it apart? Sorry dude, but I don't buy it. I am not saying we should fix anything though, I'm just saying I don't see it being 'believable'.

@Pepperm1nts

We gotta get you set up with some "Fall of the Roman Empire" literature. The fall of civilizations is a fascinating subject. I'm afraid you have the common disease of looking at the world through its national borders. It took me a while to figure out what you meant because you seem to ascribe all of the Ottoman Empire to a Turkish majority because the Turks drew their lines over the thing. I don't know the exact balance of Turks to non-Turks in these territories in Precipice because there were several layers of genocides and the later layer takes place after the Rp's history changes. But the Ottoman Empire was, much like the Austrian Empire, stressed to the breaking point by our RP. The fact it survived this long at all is sort of impressive. How this would effect populations is unclear, so we'll have to use RP based clues. So lets assume that Armenia has an Armenian majority. This means that the bureaucracy of Armenia is all that is Turkic. Historically, the Ottomans just went with being a multi-national Empire. This was in part because nationalism as we think of it was a 19th century invention so most of the ethnicities within their Empire didn't think about becoming independent until the Empire was already descendant. So if Armenia is mostly Armenians with a thin-layer of middle class Turks, and the Armenians got them some nationalism, an Armenian revolution would turn the Turks into occupiers overnight. As for the incompetence of the Ottoman Empire... this isn't that crazy either. Think the Habsburgs, 18th century France, or 13th century China, or 5th century Rome. Or, if you really want to get controversial, 21st century America. In a state that has existed as a fact for hundreds of years and has managed to grow relatively successful, an insular nobility will arise where competence becomes less important than connections. The states energy becomes less about preserving the state and more about the leaders of your nation trying to preserve their own wealth. Think about the story of how, after Alaric sacked Rome, the Emperor Honorius is told that Rome is slain He thinks it is his pet Chicken named Rome, and when the servant says that it is the city that fell and not the chicken, the Emperor replied "Thank god for that." Or the more well known "Let them eat cake" episode of the French Revolution. Or the existence of Libertarianism in the modern US. There is something about decedent Empires that breeds incompetence. This doesn't mean that now that Turkey is freed from the old Ottoman power structure there cannot be an Ataturk. That's just the problem with Precipice. To have an Ataturk, we kinda have to have a Turkish player. With a nobility insulated from society governing a multi-ethnic Empire where only the Turkish ethnicity really has any interest in participating, where economic recession is almost guaranteed and the military is most likely staffed by draftee's and the poor who have little hope of advancement, the Ottoman Empire is doomed. Which makes sense. The Ottoman Empire should have fell during the Great War. Then look at Armenia. Here you have a population where you can assume 33% or so are die-hard patriots, who are supported economically and logistically by several foreign states who know the Empire is going to fall and wants to make sure it falls in a way that benefits them, and who are the majority in all of the territories (or at least most of them) that they are claiming. They are just one of several similar rebelling states. The land they are fighting in is land they know, and it is difficult terrain. Armenia, after all, isn't an urban place. They have more than a chance. Realistically, the biggest problem for Armenia would be the fact that it's a tiny place with crap land. They aren't in a position to compete economically with the rest of the world. Maybe pushing over the corpse of a dead Empire was easy, but now Armenia is up against the world and surrounded by chaotic failed states things are going to be tougher.

[Pepperm1nts]

I don't have no damn disease. Cut the patronizing shit, you're better than that. I am completely aware that drawn borders are not universally agreed to and that claims overlap in people's minds for a variety of reasons. That still doesn't change how unlikely this whole thing is to me. I don't care how weak the Ottomans are, there is no way the average Turk would let this happen as easily as it has happened. It's like every Turk in the country agreed to roll the fuck over at the exact same time. The government may be done for, but there are still people. Pissed off people, even. You said it yourself. Don't underestimate how hard someone will fight for their land, or something they believe in. But you make no mention of how the Turks are not fighting hard. Some people are going to say the land is Greek, or Armenian, but just as many will believe it is Turkish. Yet they are just sitting there doing jack shit. EDIT: And I am not entirely convinced the fall of the goddam Roman Empire has any weight in this discussion. A lot of what happened to them still applies, sure, but the gap between a Roman Legion and an army of barbarians was significantly smaller than the gap between an industrialized nation with aircraft, tanks, ect, and one that lacks that. Polish arms may have closed the gap a bit but how much is arguable.

[Vilageidiotx]

Oh come on now. Can't write that much shit and not be a little patronizing. If the land has an Armenian majority, than it is Armenian in reality and only Turkish in the abstract. The Armenians are fighting for more than just an idea, they are also fighting for their farms and their neighborhoods. And the Turks did fight. But i'm not sure what you expected them to do. The Turks are a nationalistic people, but if they had no faith in their government and their government was just no longer capable of holding together, how would they react? It takes faith in the system to make the war work, and a system you can have faith in. It's not like all the Turks could just buy rifles and walk over to Armenia. They might be angry, they might be ashamed, but what is your average guy gonna do about it? If you cannot actually rise to a position of prominence, and those positions of prominence are held by a small nobility of people who think they deserve what they have by right rather than doing anything to earn it, then you are stuck in a broken system. And that is extremely disheartening. A system this broken, where all the wealth is pooled at the top, also creates a situation where you aren't actually rewarded for service to your country. Not really. Work hard and it just gets you a bad back. Fight hard and you just end up shot. And then nobody has faith. Really, it comes back to the Ataturk thing. Post-Ottoman Turkey has a lot of potential, but somebody has to join as them for that potential to become something.

[Vilageidiotx]

I don't have no damn disease. Cut the patronizing shit, you're better than that. I am completely aware that drawn borders are not universally agreed to and that claims overlap in people's minds for a variety of reasons. That still doesn't change how unlikely this whole thing is to me. I don't care how weak the Ottomans are, there is no way the average Turk would let this happen as easily as it has happened. It's like every Turk in the country agreed to roll the fuck over at the exact same time. The government may be done for, but there are still people. Pissed off people, even. You said it yourself. Don't underestimate how hard someone will fight for their land, or something they believe in. But you make no mention of how the Turks are not fighting hard. Some people are going to say the land is Greek, or Armenian, but just as many will believe it is Turkish. Yet they are just sitting there doing jack shit. EDIT: And I am not entirely convinced the fall of the goddam Roman Empire has any weight in this discussion. A lot of what happened to them still applies, sure, but the gap between a Roman Legion and an army of barbarians was significantly smaller than the gap between an industrialized nation with aircraft, tanks, ect, and one that lacks that. Polish arms may have closed the gap a bit but how much is arguable.

@Pepperm1nts

EDIT: And I am not entirely convinced the fall of the goddam Roman Empire has any weight in this discussion. A lot of what happened to them still applies, sure, but the gap between a Roman Legion and an army of barbarians was significantly smaller than the gap between an industrialized nation with aircraft, tanks, ect, and one that lacks that. Polish arms may have closed the gap a bit but how much is arguable.

Eh, I don't think the arms gap is that important in this case. That tends to be more important in the cases where it is states fighting states because it is easier to demolish governments than it is to demolish concepts. And I'm mostly bringing up the Romans because they are just a really good model on how social cohesion falls apart in multi-national Empires.

[Dinh AaronMk]

To add as well: Evan has said to me that the reason the war stopped as because the Turks were just done. They managed to play the time game in much the same way Ho Chi Mihn played the time game against America. A physical tactical victory was impossible for the Vietcong and they knew it. However they knew a country could grow war weary and wanted to prolong the conflict long enough that the people demanded an exist strategy. Same thing that happened in the Second World War, almost. As that conflict was carrying on over two fronts the American people were starting to demand out and the US military was having a hard time raising funds to keep up fighting. The war from a day-to-day standpoint was funded through marketing War Bonds to the civilian population. But the War Bonds would only sell provided the American people had faith. And before Iwo Jima (I believe) the civilian moral was getting low. They needed a big victory to feel they had faith in the system so they may get back to funding the US war effort. This is what happened in Turkey, except the Turks couldn't win the ultimate faith-restoring battle they needed in the mountains of Armenia. And let's examine the tactical implications of mountain combat: it's narrow. You don't get a lot of mobility in it. Early on Suleiman may have pulled it off because they weren't as stretched out as they were by the time Evan happened, but when Armenia decided they had enough the Empire was already stretched thin and distressed and the Sultan couldn't have been able to afford to send men in. And the scale at which they expanded at no doubt meant they were able to effectively rule that land. To draw a comparison in antiquity: Justinian's Byzantine Empire. Over the entire reign of Emperor Justinian the Byzantines almost had turned the Mediterranean into a Roman Lake again. However the size of the Empire meant it was unruly and to keep up with its day-to-day means meant it needed high taxes. Same could be said to Suleiman's Ottoman Empire, just with the added benefit of modern-day nationalist and ethnic identity.

[Byrd Man]

On the Colombia/Panama thing, if the US still had control of the Panama Canal back during the 60's I think they would have definitely gotten involved, the stuff with Canada be damned. That's always been the crown jewel of US hegemony in the Americas. Even those damn dirty socialists would want to keep it.

[Vilageidiotx]

On the Colombia/Panama thing, if the US still had control of the Panama Canal back during the 60's I think they would have definitely gotten involved, the stuff with Canada be damned. That's always been the crown jewel of US hegemony in the Americas. Even those damn dirty socialists would want to keep it.

@Byrd Man

"Screw Europe, but nobody touches America's pond!"

[Pepperm1nts]

@Dinh AaronMk That comparison to Vietnam would be valid if Vietnam had been invading the US, but that's not what happened. The American people grew tired of fighting a costly war overseas, because at the end of the day no one cared as much about Vietnam or communists if it meant losing thousands upon thousands of American lives on some foreign land. The situation with the Turks here is way different. They were fighting off an invasion. And because they believed Anatolia to be their land, they should have fought harder for it. The heavy cost means a lot less when you are fighting for your own home. I think the Vietnam example you brought up is a bit silly in this context but if we're really going to use it, then the Turks fit the role of the North Vietnamese more than they fit the role of the US, since they were the ones being invaded. Armenia would be the one with the role of the invader. The problem then becomes that, since they both believe the land to be theirs, there is no "the cost is too high to prolong this war in foreign land". They would both want to fight hard for what they believe is theirs.

[Byrd Man]

<Snipped quote by Byrd Man> "Screw Europe, but nobody touches America's pond!"

@Vilageidiotx

BULLY!

[Dinh AaronMk]

@Dinh AaronMk That comparison to Vietnam would be valid if Vietnam had been invading the US, but that's not what happened. The American people grew tired of fighting a costly war overseas, because at the end of the day no one cared as much about Vietnam or communists if it meant losing thousands upon thousands of American lives on some foreign land. The situation with the Turks here is way different. They were fighting off an invasion. And because they believed Anatolia to be their land, they should have fought harder for it. The heavy cost means a lot less when you are fighting for your own home. I think the Vietnam example you brought up is a bit silly in this context but if we're really going to use it, then the Turks fit the role of the North Vietnamese more than they fit the role of the US, since they were the ones being invaded. Armenia would be the one with the role of the invader. The problem then becomes that, since they both believe the land to be theirs, there is no "the cost is too high to prolong this war in foreign land". They would both want to fight hard for what they believe is theirs.

@Pepperm1nts

Even Vietnam excluded we had parties who wanted to end a war even when the enemy was on the home turf here in the US. In particular the Copperheads who wanted to end the war with the Confederacy with immediate peace, goals or direction be damned. The simple fact is war wears people out and even if at home or abroad the longer a conflict goes the more it'll grind on people's ability to endure the policy and take the weight of the stress brought by war. At some point they will simply cease to accept it and the governments ability to wage it will deteriorate if continued combat will lead to social unrest at home.

[Pepperm1nts]

Civil war =/= war against a foreign invader I am not denying that war wears people down though. But it's convenient that it was the Turks that became exhausted first. The side with the most to lose and also the best-prepared, somehow forced to tap out. The Armenians, meanwhile, seem to be fueled by war, because that's all they've done since Armenia got a player. I wonder why they're not exhausted. EDIT: I don't really want to keep arguing about this though. Whether or not Armenia's success makes any sense at all doesn't really matter now that it's done. The best we can hope for is that someone takes up Turkey so it's more than just a punchbag.

[Vilageidiotx]

@Dinh AaronMk That comparison to Vietnam would be valid if Vietnam had been invading the US, but that's not what happened. The American people grew tired of fighting a costly war overseas, because at the end of the day no one cared as much about Vietnam or communists if it meant losing thousands upon thousands of American lives on some foreign land. The situation with the Turks here is way different. They were fighting off an invasion. And because they believed Anatolia to be their land, they should have fought harder for it. The heavy cost means a lot less when you are fighting for your own home. I think the Vietnam example you brought up is a bit silly in this context but if we're really going to use it, then the Turks fit the role of the North Vietnamese more than they fit the role of the US, since they were the ones being invaded. Armenia would be the one with the role of the invader. The problem then becomes that, since they both believe the land to be theirs, there is no "the cost is too high to prolong this war in foreign land". They would both want to fight hard for what they believe is theirs.

@Pepperm1nts

It's only their home if they live there though. If the communities in Armenia are mostly Armenian then Armenia is only abstractly Turkish. The loss of Armenia might rub on Turkish pride, but it doesn't mean the Turks as a people or culture were threatened with subjugation or extinction. If the danger is abstract than the population will much more easily lose the will to fight. At some point, "The cost is too high to prolong this war in foreign land" does happen. I mentioned Algeria earlier. I think Algeria is the closest equivalent there is. France identified heavily with their colony in Algeria, to the point that it was a eventually made a fully integrated member of France rather than a colonial second-fiddle, but they did eventually get forced to leave by native resistance. And France was not a collapsing Empire at the time.

[Dinh AaronMk]

And it was basically a five year war. Armenia's fight for independence carried on long enough to matter.

[Pepperm1nts]

@vilageidiotx I haven't been talking about Armenia-Armenia, though. I am not arguing the Turks would fight to the death to take back central Armenia. Central as in what we know to be Armenia in the real world. I am talking about the eastern parts of Turkey that are only Armenian depending on who you ask. That land has been Turkish for a long time now in the RP and the real world. That is what I am arguing they would fight for. I am not saying they would fight to the last man to take back Sevan. I am saying they would fight to the last man, or close, to take back.. I 'unno, Erzerum and that huge chunk of land Armenia took. And Istanbul. And what the Greeks took. EDIT:

And it was basically a five year war. Armenia's fight for independence carried on long enough to matter.

@Dinh AaronMk

This is the shit that we really need to be careful with. Look, I agree that commitment can sometimes be held above things like realism. It's okay if Googer has a fucking train get snatched by a plane because 1) it's cool and 2) he's googer and he's a big part of PoW, and we trust him. Plus that's a small, unimportant thing. But that doesn't mean we should excuse any nonsensical thing just because the player stuck around long enough to make it happen. If it's questionable, it's questionable and it should be called out. Mihn stuck around long enough to make Brazil impossibly influential and that didn't stop us from stomping it out, for good reason. It should be no different with other players. I am not saying we should stomp out what Evan has done, though. But "he stuck around so it's okay" is bullshit.

[Vilageidiotx]

@vilageidiotx I haven't been talking about Armenia-Armenia, though. I am not arguing the Turks would fight to the death to take back central Armenia. Central as in what we know to be Armenia in the real world. I am talking about the eastern parts of Turkey that are only Armenian depending on who you ask. That land has been Turkish for a long time now in the RP and the real world. That is what I am arguing they would fight for. I am not saying they would fight to the last man to take back Sevan. I am saying they would fight to the last man, or close, to take back.. I 'unno, Erzerum and that huge chunk of land Armenia took. And Instabul. And what the Greeks took. EDIT: <Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk> This is the shit that we really need to be careful with. Look, I agree that commitment needs to be held above things like realism. It's okay if Googer has a fucking train get snatched by a plane because 1) it's cool and 2) he's googer and he's a big part of PoW, and we trust him. But that doesn't mean we should excuse nonsensical shit just because the player stuck around long enough to make it happen. If it's questionable, it's questionable and it should be called out.

@Pepperm1nts

We've called people out before despite them being involved. Honestly, Evan's falls pretty squarely in acceptability. Its more believable that the Pan-African Empire, honestly. And regarding Armenian populations, the important thing is who lives where. That's always the most important thing. And when talking about the Ottoman Empire, it becomes somewhat confusing. If we look at a map of who lived where in 1910, we get the beginning of a picture. This would be after the first Armenian genocide but before the second. I don't actually know how brutal the genocides were in the RP's history, but even a shrunken Armenian influence would still put Erzurum in territory with an Armenian majority. Algeria remains a good roadmap. There were French settlers in Algeria who tried their damnedest to hold on to power, but when the war got ugly the mainland French lost interest in maintaining a bloody and costly war. When I drew the split up, I was mostly trying to make the Turkish situation look like something interesting. Istanbul being independent was dramatic flair on my part, but it was done based on the fact that he Empire had literally just split up a week before this thread started. There is clearly a conflict built into that situation that would turn into something, but somebody gotta join to make it happen.