Shadow of the Andes - An Interactive Chilean AAR

Again, your argument is proven as nonsense, by the same example I used before: if militias were so prone to using their arms against laws they view oppressive, why would the Red Guards or the trade unions themselves not have taken over the factories that are, by common sentiment among the working class, their rightful property?

You underestimate what laws, which the people obey, are viewed as oppressive by them; you can only perceive the established order as inoffensive to all right thinking people.

blindgoose said:

"Such would be an act of rebellion against the lawful government."
- Ferran Martí

Click to expand...

The same act of "rebellion" that we are proposing, is the one the Red Guard did when they formed during the liberal administrations. If we want to form a Reactionary militia, we will. As of today, 1889, there are no legislations to prohibit such act. The bill has not passed yet.

blindgoose said:

"(...) If you should like to form your own militia to defend the Republic, do so (...)"
- Ferran Martí

Click to expand...

Don't worry, senor Marti, we will.

It seems my opponent is more focused on declaring my arguments baseless, than focusing on the debate at hand.

I have said multiple times that the past is not an indicator of the future. As of now, all militias are a potential danger. If you want to talk about the legitimacy of a militia being to protect private or collective interests, than a militia can function in any regard it deems right (EVEN IF its function is to subvert a passed law). I would argue if you cant see the legitimacy of a militia in protecting its interests against any assault, even a government led one, than you fail to see the danger of a militia.

I do not care that the Red Guard has not become a danger to Chilean society yet, all I care about is that it will eventually become so. If it is in five years of fifty, a militia of people with a like mind to run things, will eventually see the government as an equal danger to their rights.

Our job is to protect the Republic, not let termites eat the supports structure out from underneath Chile. If this means disarming all groups of people with radical notions of government, so be it.

I would like to conclude with a question. Why does it matter if the oppression a militia sees is from an oppressive majority ruling on how they should act visa-vi a bill passed by a Democratically elected government, vs. defending against some other outside oppressive force? Why does it matter to the militiamen? Everyone is out to protect their bottom-line, and it is our job as representatives of the 3rd Republic to ensure this does not harm the greater Chilean state.

The army has been a danger to Chilean society multiple times in the past; in fact, almost half of our military force defected to Andonie, and almost all of the military backed Cesar Roseno's coup. Does that mean we should ban the army? No, of course not, so why should militias be any different?

We have even less control over militias than the military. Besides, I would argue that for the 3rd Republic's sake, we aught to severely diminish Peace Time standing army, and transfer the troops to the pro-government stack, so as to prevent the ability for generals to seek influence.

I suppose what I am saying in the end, is that if we do not remove the Red Guard, than no one can complain about the trouble any other militia will cause. A militia is not meant to see just from unjust, only what is best for its representatives. If the Land Distribution Act succeeds, I urge a militia to form to protect their private interests. Why? Because we area allowing other militias to do so.

But what I really want is stability, and while in the PAST the militias have not been harmful, in the FUTURE they will.

Colonel de Porto.

(You guys can post one more back to forth, but I think I am done with this argument. Too cyclical.)

So you are urging landowners to engage in violent acts against a given law, should it be passed and put into effect?

Let that be noted for the future of your career in the military or politics.

Enough. This debate is endless and without solution. I had assumed that the politicians were men of good faith, who would willingly decrease their power for the sake of national stability and friendly relations. I had assumed that those who had lamented their oppressed status and used it to justify extralegal methods would forego those methods now that they were well represented in government. It appears I was mistaken. It seems that only a minority remains concerned about the fate of the nation; the majority cares only for the success of their political parties, and for the achievement of personal power. A depressing discovery, but one I should have made sooner.

- General Charles Maximilien, Prince de Conti

Lima, Peru

Ernesto walked towards the train heading for the harbor, he gave the conductor the ticket and boarded.

10 minutes later

He walked up to a man in a suit and spoke to him.

"Hello Senor, where is the HMS Duchess of York?"

"It is the ship behind me dear sir, I take it you are a passenger?"

"Yes Senor, I am travelling to England to complete some studies."

"Ah, I see, well good luck"

He nodded to the man and walked up the board planks, once at the top, he gave his ticket to the man waiting and received his cabin number.

((Ernesto is going to be England completing some more studies in Law and Medicine))

zagoroth said:

We have even less control over militias than the military. Besides, I would argue that for the 3rd Republic's sake, we aught to severely diminish Peace Time standing army, and transfer the troops to the pro-government stack, so as to prevent the ability for generals to seek influence.

I suppose what I am saying in the end, is that if we do not remove the Red Guard, than no one can complain about the trouble any other militia will cause. A militia is not meant to see just from unjust, only what is best for its representatives. If the Land Distribution Act succeeds, I urge a militia to form to protect their private interests. Why? Because we area allowing other militias to do so.

But what I really want is stability, and while in the PAST the militias have not been harmful, in the FUTURE they will.

Colonel de Porto.

(You guys can post one more back to forth, but I think I am done with this argument. Too cyclical.)

Click to expand...

((NO. The current stack of 16 brigades is the maximum we can have. Else, it exceeds the supply limit and attritions to death. That policy would lead to mass death.))

I have a few comments to make. As a commander I would say that it is not the size of the armies that lead to instability but the commanders. The men follow their leaders and it is therefore the Generals that need to be vetted rather than worrying about the size of the armies. Armies dont rebel, their leaders do. However i do feel that the standing army is too large. While we are able to cope economcally, i do wonder how much better off we would be with a smaller standing army. This would allow us to reduce the tax burden on the less well off and promote equality.

Captain Rios

I agree with Captain Rios. The problem here is that we have a severe lack of leadership. Same thing happens with politics; nobody is concerned with the future of the nation, and everyone is after their personal interests or keeping themselves in power. We need a strong and doubtless leadership that directs the nation into a new golden age. The army is small, and it serves the interest of defending ourselves from neighboors, but not from the european powers. We need to expand it, under the benefits of the economic boom. We have the money to do so, and the technology to make a strong standing army.

Archbishop Fernandez

thekinguter said:

I agree with Captain Rios. The problem here is that we have a severe lack of leadership. Same thing happens with politics; nobody is concerned with the future of the nation, and everyone is after their personal interests or keeping themselves in power. We need a strong and doubtless leadership that directs the nation into a new golden age. The army is small, and it serves the interest of defending ourselves from neighboors, but not from the european powers. We need to expand it, under the benefits of the economic boom. We have the money to do so, and the technology to make a strong standing army.

Archbishop Fernandez

Click to expand...

I am sorry Archbishop but I am not in favour of increasing the size of the Army. With almost half a million men it is by far the largest in this hemisphere. I would suggest investing in our technology but teh scientific side is far above me. Ourt leaders do need better leadership though. After serving with General Zepeda I can certainly attest to that.

Captain Rios

hmm, let it be noted that the honorable de Guerrero has let it be noted that my logic is transcendent of his politics.

I agree, we need better leadership above all else. Not everyone can be as just and logical as Senor de Guerrero. We are members of the 3rd Republic, our job is to protect the 3rd Republic, not look out for our bottom line.

ThunderHawk3 said:

((As a note to all, I'm still waiting on AHD on Steam and will probably still be waiting for a little over an hour. The update may not be today.))

Click to expand...

I have read that savegame carried over might get a little weird..... Hopefully fine. PLaying it now after lots of initial problems

ThunderHawk3 said:

((As a note to all, I'm still waiting on AHD on Steam and will probably still be waiting for a little over an hour. The update may not be today.))

Click to expand...

((I suppose there will be gameplay changes in the AAR with the new options, right?))

ThunderHawk3 said:

Probably. I'm still figuring that out. I'm still thinking about individual general prestige and what to do with that - I may not do anything at all, but it will still affect the game.

Click to expand...

((It will probably make the foreign minister more important, with the new GP options like foreign investment and manufacture CB. I also guess the communists and the future fascists will get the option to change the governments of our sphered countries, like Bolivia, and such.

And the bill voting stopped, I assume? AHD came out after all. ))

Rogov said:

So you are urging landowners to engage in violent acts against a given law, should it be passed and put into effect?

Click to expand...

No please do not misunderstand our words. I am the highest representative of the Holy See in Chile, and therefore I must carry a message of peace and love. I do not want to force my flock to disobey the law or any such act that might make our bureaucrats doubt in the legitimacy of the church's actions. I just asked that if the communist party had a paramilitary branch, then the other parties are legally allowed to have one as well (and they will have, as things are). If congress approves a law to remove private property, then it's a shame, but the church must abide by the law, but always remembering the Chilean government that ecclesiastical property can't be removed, because it's part of the Vatican's private property (just like a foreign embassy). I do not want to provoke more bloodshed. Please accept my apologies.