-
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.
Firstly, I remind my honourable friend Von Urlich that while he may have proposed the constitutional amendment, it was supported by a multitude of representatives, not merely his own party. The success of the bill should reflect well on all who rightfully supported it.
Onto more pressing matters, I urge members of the house such as Von Wolf to resist making such bellicose statements in such a volatile time. I believe it is not too late for a diplomatic solution to this event, as has happened previously when our nation has been brought to the brink of war, and it is the duty of members of this house to be prudent.
War will only bring death to our young men, and ruination to our great industries that have been built up by the German worker.
~H.C.A
Onto more pressing matters, I urge members of the house such as Von Wolf to resist making such bellicose statements in such a volatile time. I believe it is not too late for a diplomatic solution to this event, as has happened previously when our nation has been brought to the brink of war, and it is the duty of members of this house to be prudent.
War will only bring death to our young men, and ruination to our great industries that have been built up by the German worker.
~H.C.A
I all i said was that Germany should declare war on those nations, i never revealed any battle plans or troop movements.
I support the Chancellor's plans to seek a diplomatic solution to this crisis before rushing to war.
Shame on you Von wolf and Mr. G! Shame for rushing to send men to their deaths! The Austrians have not even sent their demands to Serbia yet, and nobody else has even mobilized! Or is it your intention to mobilize millions and start a european war when the crisis may yet be contained?
Not to mention that openly saying we should declare war on Russia and France, who have done nothing immediate to warrant such action, disturbs me greatly. Go! Take your war mongering somewhere else!
Not to mention that openly saying we should declare war on Russia and France, who have done nothing immediate to warrant such action, disturbs me greatly. Go! Take your war mongering somewhere else!
Honourable members of the Reichstag, I would ask that you join me in a show of public disapproval against von Wolf's comments. Whilst we must not shy away from war, we could not call ourselves Gentlemen if we did not first try and reach a diplomatic solution to this problem.
We are on common ground disliking the idea of open war talks in the parliament, but could you please specify the exact moment when I wanted to start a war?
I also support the honorable Chancellors plan to call a confrence of the Great Powers. I also agree we must avoid war at all costs and we will only support the Austro-Hungarians if certain conditions are met.
-Graf Franz von Lanstein-Pranow Post Master General of the Reich
-Graf Franz von Lanstein-Pranow Post Master General of the Reich
I do not believe that declaring war on Russia or France is a good idea. Such a war would be disastrous for all the peoples of Europe, Germany included. If we do go to war, there are two things that I would suggest. First, we need to acquire military access from Belgium if we intend to use the Schlieffen Plan, as their neutrality has been guaranteed by the United Kingdom, and a war with both of these powers would surely lead to defeat for us. Second, we should reconsider our use of submarine warfare. This is only likely to incite hostility with the United States, which, due to their considerable advantage to us in population and industry, we definitely do not want.
It is a bit easier to get what we want with words if we back up the words with cannon. The only way to avoid great losses is to mobilize the army.
See! My ideas were good! Especially transit rights with Belgium. And I agree on the submarine warfare; we should limit our attacks to only warships of nations we're actually at war with, not on unaligned civilian vessels.
We must also ensure that our allies are unified; what of Italy?
Let's be cautious in our actions; we don't want to start a global war over Serbia, do we? Let's begin stockpiling weapons, and organize our corps for mobilization; we can wait, as Russia cannot, in any way, mobilize as quickly as we can (don't discount, though, take that into consideration).
If we only make declaration of support for Austria, and honour our alliance, could we prevent French intervention in the war?
I do not trust the power-hungry leaders of the world to leave us alone if we prove ourself to be weak. If we do not even have the stomach to mobilize our army, who will believe that we have what it takes to defend ourselves if needs be? We have to be able to protect our boarders and help our diplomats with heavy arguments of steel in order to secure the well-being of our nation.
We don't want to risk provoking more nations into the war! Let's try to reason with the other powers, then resolve the conflict. Bismarck did not unify Germany simply by attacking his foes all at once; he took them one at a time, after ensuring they were politically isolated.
No nation would directly attack us; our forces our strong (the greatest army in all of Europe), and our navy, though not the force the British have, is still a force to be reckoned with. We have several months free to negotiate with (at least with Belgium transit rights, ensuring Italy is on our side, keeping Britain out of the war, and other suggestions by the other members).
Perhaps we can get Japan to join our side; they've beaten the Russians once already, and having an ally on the opposite side of the our current rival could keep this war from escalating (at the very least, it would give us more power in the Pacific and could knock Russia out of the war more quickly).
No nation would directly attack us; our forces our strong (the greatest army in all of Europe), and our navy, though not the force the British have, is still a force to be reckoned with. We have several months free to negotiate with (at least with Belgium transit rights, ensuring Italy is on our side, keeping Britain out of the war, and other suggestions by the other members).
Perhaps we can get Japan to join our side; they've beaten the Russians once already, and having an ally on the opposite side of the our current rival could keep this war from escalating (at the very least, it would give us more power in the Pacific and could knock Russia out of the war more quickly).
I agree that having an ally in Japan is a good idea. It would also be beneficial for us to at least make a non-aggression pact with the United States, if not attempt to make an alliance.
Japan would be largely dependent on the British point of view. Their dealings with European powers is mostly limited other than their alliance witih the British, after all.
Even if this is to come to war, our greatest efforts must yet be taken diplomatically - we must prevent a war against Britain and her dominions. Britain means thousands, if not millions, of soldiers streaming in from her and her dominions to the front, not to mention her navy and the blockade it may inflict us. Do we dare challenge the royal navy directly in the North Sea? We could, perhaps, but are we willing to risk that?
Britain's diplomatic importance is only further emphasized by her relations to Japan, of whom would be disastrous to our colonial holdings and may well support the war in Europe, and perhaps most importantly, America. America may have no reason to intervene and well stay neutral in this war, but their culture, within the Anglo-Saxon sphere, is clearly likely to favour the British when it comes to a decision, not to mention with a British blockade on our trade, their neutrality may well be selling arms and guns to our enemies. And not to mention the disaster if they entered.
I have great confidence that as long as we can keep Britain out of the war, our success will be enhanced greatly. Simply let historic animousities do their work from there, and after the initial phase, Britain will keep neutral, thereby protecting our important trade and supply routes through the Oceans as well as removing dozens of potential divisions on the front. This means that I vehemently protest against any implementation of the Schelieffen Plan that will require the invasion of Belgium. If we get access, fine, but to act upon it otherwise would be utter foolishness.
I support the idea of calling for an European conference, although I also support initiatives to ready our troops, although mobilisation, not quite yet.
Even if this is to come to war, our greatest efforts must yet be taken diplomatically - we must prevent a war against Britain and her dominions. Britain means thousands, if not millions, of soldiers streaming in from her and her dominions to the front, not to mention her navy and the blockade it may inflict us. Do we dare challenge the royal navy directly in the North Sea? We could, perhaps, but are we willing to risk that?
Britain's diplomatic importance is only further emphasized by her relations to Japan, of whom would be disastrous to our colonial holdings and may well support the war in Europe, and perhaps most importantly, America. America may have no reason to intervene and well stay neutral in this war, but their culture, within the Anglo-Saxon sphere, is clearly likely to favour the British when it comes to a decision, not to mention with a British blockade on our trade, their neutrality may well be selling arms and guns to our enemies. And not to mention the disaster if they entered.
I have great confidence that as long as we can keep Britain out of the war, our success will be enhanced greatly. Simply let historic animousities do their work from there, and after the initial phase, Britain will keep neutral, thereby protecting our important trade and supply routes through the Oceans as well as removing dozens of potential divisions on the front. This means that I vehemently protest against any implementation of the Schelieffen Plan that will require the invasion of Belgium. If we get access, fine, but to act upon it otherwise would be utter foolishness.
I support the idea of calling for an European conference, although I also support initiatives to ready our troops, although mobilisation, not quite yet.
Bismark was able to do so since he had an army at his disposal. I concur that our army is too strong to allow our nation to be mocked with. That is exactly why we should show it to the world!
If you want to be a butterfly, let us all hope that the potential enemies of the nation do not have a net at their disposal.
Submarine warfare will generally depend on how effective our surface navy is in preventing a blockade. Should we keep our ports open, submarine warfare will not be necessary, but surely it is folly to rule out even a single weapon of war! But should our surface fleet fail, then I see no choice but to utilize submarines to disrupt enemy shipping. It is common sense to any military minded man.
Ah, you do not seem to understand European diplomacy. Let me explain. We have an alliance with austria, but it is not so simple as declaring support for them, nor do we even know what we are supporting yet! As the chancellor says, a blank check for the austrians will only lead to disaster. And should Russia come to Serbia's aid, and we come to austria's France will be honor bound to come to the aid of Russia. Does that make sense at all? So in simplicity, no, if we join the war against Russia, France WILL intervene.
Are you daft? An alliance with the United States? Did you miss the part where they sided with Britain and France over the pair of Moroccan crisis'? We have about as much chance of success there as we do in convincing the Social Democrats that unions are the work of the devil. Perhaps a non aggression pact would be nice, but just how effective is it? If they truly do end up getting a casus belli against us for whatever reason, they can easily break the NAP!
Again, I ask, are you daft? Mobilizing our army when war can still be avoided? Mobilizing our army when we don't even know if Austria's demands will be met by the serbs? To mobilize an army is to guarantee a war. Once mobilization of one country occurs, all other countries must follow suit or risk a surprise attack against their unmobilized forces. And what happens when our mobilization causes that 6 million man Russian army to mobilize to our east and the French to mobilize to the west? Arguments of steel to back up our diplomats do not require mobilization. The countries of Europe KNOW the relative military power of each other, and mobilization only serves to provoke war.
OOC: My apologies if I come across as rude, but in 1914, mobilization was akin to actually declaring war. Essentially, if a country mobilized, and its neighbors didn't, then those neighbors would be taking a tremendous risk of being invaded easily.
It is sad to see however that you do not want to use our army to display our might. Besides, you do not seem to believe in the strength of our military? You think it too weak to stand up against our invaders? All soldiers and their family now know that the German Reich Party does not believe in the German people's ability to defend them self.
OOC: No worries, this is a game. I do not take this personally at all.
