• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
how is this unrealistic? Is it maybe the fact that too many minor states are getting a say or something? I hope you don't leave this, I think you are doing very well as the rep for the British.
 
OOC: Are you talking about the RP, or the League of United Nations?

The RP, and the UN.

how is this unrealistic? Is it maybe the fact that too many minor states are getting a say or something? I hope you don't leave this, I think you are doing very well as the rep for the British.

Too many small nations voicing their opinions on matters that generally don't concern them (that makes me sound like a twat). For example the only people who should be concerned with Gibraltar are me, Iberia and the US. As for the security council the top 5 should decide who gets a seat, no one else. Its not as if the Poles got to decide their fate at the end of OTL WW 2 and they were on the winning side.
 
There were also several million Russians sitting on top of Poland. Bit different here. That said, the whole bit was unrealistic as hell, why start worrying about it now?
 
I don't think you should be very worried about how these small nations are behaving at this postwar conference to rebuild the world. Pretty much all of the outlandish suggestions have been defeated by popular vote. Besides, it is danielshannon that has the final say, since he is the authAAR.

Come on Winston, don't give up hope on us yet! You just got to fight harder to make your case if you think something should go how you feel it should. :)
 
Well, what I wish to ensure is that being sandwiched by two potential greater powers, that we have the foundation for a security arrangement that will not necessitate my country to be turned into a buffer state.
 
Well, what I wish to ensure is that being sandwiched by two potential greater powers, that we have the foundation for a security arrangement that will not necessitate my country to be turned into a buffer state.

My people have this same worry.
 
Ooc
Hey guys. Sorry I’ve been absent. The forum has been down every time I’ve tried to access this in the past 5 days. 
(OOC: This is assuming a UN doesn't exit, which I'm not sure it does)
I feel the need my friends express a issue. One that has been troubling me greatly in recent days, it is this. Where once the League of Nations failed to stop the rise of tyrants, we need a new such organization. One which can stop the spread of terror and authoritarian states if they may yet rise again. We cannot rely on the United States to provide us with the stability and strength we need, we must use our own strength to power ourselves on not that of others. We need such a organization which can sanction troops to areas in need of the peace being kept, that can provide loans to states for economic development projects. We need such a organization now, more than ever.
We would like to motion a petition for such a organization, called, perhaps upon debate, the League of United Nations, a place where every nationstate may have a voice on the matters that concern their country. Leading such a organization must be a group of the five who committed the most to the Great Crusade. A council for security and of the creation of economic prosperity. There would also be a sixth member, a nation which would have as much of a veto power to any movements as any other of the big five. This nation would be elected by popular concensious from the floor (ie from all nations voting for a candidate other than themselves).
Would the committee agree to such a organization?
OOC: The establishment of the UN has been agreed upon, but the particulars of how it will work remain undecided.

IC: We agree that the many nations of the world, great and small, should be able to have a voice within the United Nations. However, the fact of the matter is that, for example, the Germans will have to play a larger role on the world stage than the peoples of Papua New Guinea.

Perhaps the Security Council could consist of 14 nations? Seven would be permanent members, selected on the merits of their contributions to the Great Crusade, as well as for their future potential. The rest would be elected by the general assembly for 2 year terms. Additionally, we feel that individual nations should not be able to veto the will of the international community. However, any authorization to employ international peacekeepers should require a sizable (2/3?) majority. Furthermore, the security council should be able to add permanent members, for example, China may very well be worthy of a permanent seat. If a permanent member makes a mockery of international law or engages in warmongering, then a supermajority of the security council should have the power to revoke their permanent status.

Here are our suggestions for the membership of the Security Council
1. USA – The largest industrial and military power on the planet
2. BRITISH COMMONWEALTH (Rotates between UK and its dominions. Representative must be approved by the crown) – in recognition of Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia’s efforts during the Crusade
3. LATIN AMERICA – a rotating seat, with the ambassador approved by the Organization of American states, to acknowledge the sacrifices of Latinos in the War.
4. INDIA –they have enormous potential. Accurate figures for population are unavailable at the this time, but it is either the first or second most populous nation on the planet.
5. GERMANY – the world’s second largest economy
6. FRANCE – the world’s second largest military power
7. JAPAN – the largest Asian economy

However there are a few other states that may seriously deserve a space on the Security Council. The Italian and Iberian contributions to the war were substantial and a noncommunist China, home to perhaps a fifth of humanity, would certainly be worthy of a seat.

We can hold off on this decisions until after European boundaries are resolved.

OOC: Below are the open slots. China doesn’t have a proper government. Japan is still open. Let me know if you still want China, Zeldar.
The Big 5
Harry S. Truman President USA (Me)
Gordon Graydon Conservative PM of Canada (Kaiser_Mobius)
Winston Churchill PM of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Midge)
Field Marshall Erwin Rommel President of Germany (Trekaddict)
Field Marshall Henri Giraud Provisional President of the French Republic (Rockingluke)

European Delegates
Juan III the King of Iberia (ColossusCrusher)
Alcide De Gasperi Prime Minister of the Republic of Italy (atty)
Willem Schermerhorn Prime Minister of the Netherlands (Ivir Baggins)


American Delegates
Air Marshal Eduardo Gomes Provisional President of Brazil
Field Marshall Juan Peron Provisional President of Argentina
Alesso Melecio Foreign Minister of Mexico
León Cortés Castro President of the United States of Central America
Don Aurelio Mosquera Narváez Prime Minister of Gran Colombia
Sir Arthur Richards Prime Minister of the West indies Federation

British Empire Delegates
Sir Earle Page Prime Minister of Australia (Lord of Time)
Adam Hamilton PM of New Zealand
Daniel François Malan special representative for Afrikaner
Pixley ka Isaka Seme founder of the African National Congress
General Governor Maulana Azad and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India
Don Stephen Senanayake Prime Minister of Ceylon

Asian Delegates
General Kazushige Ugaki provisional Prime minister of Japan
Wenceslao Quinito Vinzons foreign Minister of the Republic of the Philippines (hoi2geek)
Soong Tzu-wen leader of the Chinese National Council (Zeldar155 ?)
Syngman Rhee leader of the Korean National Council (Ciryandor)

Others
As of yet unnamed Polish advocate - J.J.Jameson

OOC: I’ll post some maps of possible eastern solutions tomorrow for your voting pleasure.
 
Looks good, danielshannon. I was hoping you would get rid of the veto, since it pretty much kills anything worthwhile in OTL UN.

Also, I'm guessing the new forum software (sucks, btw) is responsible for largely killing this thread. Can we get back on this? What's the fate of Eastern Europe?
 
Okay these are the suggestions as I understand them:

1. A new commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania. Covering the boundaries of prewar Poland and Lithuania minus Memel and Danzig. Latvia would possibly merge with Estonia and Finland in a Union.
2. A commonwealth of Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Byelorussians, and Ukrainians. This state will control the western parts of Ukraine and Belarus, but not heavily Russified areas. Also missing would be Daugavpils (in game Dagaupulis) which may go to Russia. Estonia would likely merge with Finland.
3. A commonwealth of Poles, Balts, and Ruthenians: All of Poland, the Baltic states, and western Ukraine and Belarus.

Are there any other suggestions? if not we'll put it to a vote and then allow the people's of these regions to validate or reject this conferences solutions. (Lets just say they vote the way we do to keep things easy)
 
Poland and Lithuania would probably merge, with Latvia needing a random roll on whether they go North w/ Estonia or south with the Commonwealth. Byelorussia and Ukraine would be another large Slavic non-Russian state; and both Russia and Ukraine should have access to the Black Sea; unless St. Petersburg is enough of a port for European Russia...
 
Poland-Lithuania must be reborn.
Also, Estonia AND Livonia must join Aland, Lappland(even Norwegian and Swedish Lappland), Karelia, and Ingria in joining with the Finnish Union
 
I-Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Bór-Komorowski) advocate for the Polish people-do hearby cast my vote for the joining of Poland, Lithuania. and the southern part of Latvia. Estonia should go to whereever they vote to. We also vote for Belraus and western Ukraine to join us, pending their own votes of course.
 
As I said. I've withdrawn. You need to find a new delegate.
 
Last edited: