[OOC] World in Revolution: 1861

[The Nexerus]

Pepperm1nts said
To be fair, the Dutch began hostilities by annexing Belgium.

Nope, that was a separate war that was already concluded with the Treaty of Brussels. When the Dutch marched on Belgium, the war was quick and decisive. No foreign powers (sans Prussia) involved themselves in any capacity, spare for France happening to be the place that Leopold ran off to.

This war began as a result of the Ottoman Empire declaring a blockade on Dutch shores, and moving ships into the North Sea to facilitate such a blockade.

[Pasta Sentient]

Pepperm1nts said
Arguably, this is all part of the same war. One could say the war began the moment the Dutch invaded Belgium. I might be missing some bits here and there, but it seems to me it was at around that time that hostilities truly began. The annexation of Belgium is one of the key reasons for the war, or at least it seems so from my perspective.

That's our take on it. Also since Prussia withdrew from the Treaty of Constantinople they should probably give back the land they took from Denmark, but that's just my opinion.

Timeline:

Netherlands/Prussia annex Belgium.

ToC Signatories dislike. Should actually declare War because of ToC.

Ask Prussia/Belgium to give back land kindly. They refuse.

Rhetoric.

Ottomans send blockade because Prussia broke ToC.

Coaltion declares war.

Prussia withdrew illegally from the ToC(time limit on annulment) somewhere in there. I don't think Russia ever did. So Russia is breaking the ToC as well since they never withdrew.

[The Nexerus]

The ToC is null and void. I thought all parties had already acknowledged this?

[Pasta Sentient]

The Nexerus said
The ToC is null and void. I thought all parties had already acknowledged this?

Nope. Only Prussia and Britain withdrew.

[So Boerd]

Because Prussia broke ToC.

Point of some dispute.

[The Nexerus]

Pasta Sentient said
Nope. Only Prussia and Britain withdrew.

Pasta, the ToC being annulled as a result of a provision in the ToC goes against the spirit of its annulment, doesn't it? I say that, since it is the non-signatories forced to obey the ToC who suffered the most as a result of it, it should be they who decide whether it is to be discarded or not. Being that none of those powers support the ToC, it's discarded by default.

[So Boerd]

Russia is breaking the ToC as well since they never withdrew.

Point of further dispute.

[Pasta Sentient]

So Boerd said
Point of some dispute.

It is; but it was very clear in negotiations that any aggression on the Continent was to be dealt with by the Signatories declaring war on the aggressor.

Even with the whole sphere of influence (which is debatable on whether you had it over that area), you just simply aggressively invaded Belgium.
"--Section 2: A signatory has a responsibility to ensure that the humanitarian needs of those in their sphere of influence are met, and can request help from other signatories in order to meet this responsibility."

I would consider that breaking Section 2. Rather than attempting to do this peacably y'all just invaded without warning to the ToC signatories or Belgium.

[Pepperm1nts]

Yeah, I might be missing something, but it seems to me like you guys are just conveniently separating theses events into two separate wars so you can claim that the allies have no right to demand Belgium be restored at the end of it all (provided they win the war). The way I see it (and again, I could be missing something), the war began partly because of the annexation of Belgium. Therefore, if the allies win, they are fully within their rights to demand Belgium be restored.

If these events were years apart, then I'd agree that it would be too late to demand a free Belgium. But the war began soon after (even if the conquest of Belgium was done already) and partly in response to Belgium being annexed, so I would consider the annexation of Belgium to be part of the on-going war.

Just callin' them like I see 'em.

[The Nexerus]

Pepperm1nts said The way I have see it (and again, I could be missing something), the war began partly because of the annexation of Belgium.

Let's continue down that train of thought, then. If Belgium being reunited with the Netherlands was an event that contributed to the war, then wouldn't the separation of Belgium in the first place also be a contributing factor, since it was the reason that the reunification occurred?

The War of the Eighth Coalition began as a result of resistance to the idea of self-determination and the national will on the part of the Allied powers.

@Pasta: Not a single Prussian entered Belgium until after the Dutch had advanced into Flanders.

[Pasta Sentient]

The Nexerus said
Let's continue down that train of thought, then. If Belgium being reunited with the Netherlands was an event that contributed to the war, then wouldn't the separation of Belgium in the first place also be a contributing factor, since it was the reason that the reunification occurred?The War of the Eighth Coalition began as a result of resistance to the idea of self-determination and the national will on the part of the Allied powers.@Pasta: Not a single Prussian entered Belgium until after the Dutch had advanced into Flanders.

The Separation of Belgium occurred 30 years prior.

And the Prussian Empire should have declared war on the Netherlands for bring war on the continent.

And the 8th Coaltion began as a way to manipulate the ToC so that Prussia could gain power. There is nothing else around it. From what I understand, Prussia was contacting y'all during/immediately after the ToC.

[The Nexerus]

Pasta Sentient said
The Separation of Belgium occurred 30 years prior.

How is that relevant?

[Pepperm1nts]

The Nexerus said
Let's continue down that train of thought, then. If Belgium being reunited with the Netherlands was an event that contributed to the war, then wouldn't the separation of Belgium in the first place also be a contributing factor, since it was the reason that the reunification occurred?

Belgium had been its own state for a long while before the Dutch "reunited" it, though. It's irrelevant now that the Dutch once owned Belgium. Belgium, at the time of its conquest, was an independent, sovereign state. The Netherlands violated that sovereignty when they invaded. The only way I could see this "reunification" argument having any merit, is if the people of Belgium themselves called for the reunification, and the Dutch simply delivered on their wishes. But that didn't happen, nor was it very likely to happen. Sure, the Dutch probably have some support in the North, but I highly doubt the country of Belgium, as a whole, supported the annexation.

[Pasta Sentient]

The Nexerus said
How is that relevant?

You state 'following this train of thought.' 30 years is a huge difference between one. That was a different war than this one.

Edit: What pepper said.

[Dedonus]

The Nexerus said
How is that relevant?

Pepperm1nts said
If these events were years apart, hen I'd agree that it would be too late to demand a free Belgium.

I am only stating this due to extending Pepperm1nts' train of thought.

[The Nexerus]

Pasta Sentient said That was a different war than this one.

And the Dutch War of Reunification was a different war than the War of the Eighth Coalition.

Pepperm1nts said It's irrelevant now that the Dutch once owned Belgium

How so? The amount of years that have passed between the two wars is irrelevant when deciding whether or not they are the same war.

[Pasta Sentient]

The Nexerus said
And the Dutch War of Reunification was a different war than the War of the Eighth Coalition.How so? The amount of years that have passed between the two wars is irrelevant when deciding whether or not they are the same war.

The "Dutch War of Reunification" is the instigation of the Great War.

It is true that years are not that important, but the fact is that during those years Belgium was established as a Sovereign, Independent state. Totally different than if they were still a rebel faction not acknoweldged.

You are grasping at straws to somehow justify the Netherland's blatant land grab.

[Pepperm1nts]

The Nexerus said
How so?

Because Belgium was a sovereign state for thirty-years. It's been way too long. Hell, even if it hadn't been that long, Belgium was, at that point, a sovereign state.

I'm struggling to come up with some examples, but.. It'd be like Serbia suddenly deciding they should annex the rest of the Balkan states because they once, at some point in the past, owned them anyway. It wouldn't fly.

[The Nexerus]

Pasta Sentient said You are grasping at straws to somehow justify the Netherland's blatant land grab.

I fully agree that it is a blatant land grab, to further the goal unifying the country. It cannot, on the Netherlands' part, be justified on a legal basis. Legality isn't the reason that the reunification occurred, though. If no country ever declared war illegally, the Netherlands never would've existed.

[Dedonus]

Why can't you guys peacefully unify your countries, like I did.