Originally posted by Damocles
The Spanish Question:
I think before I even say anything...I should make it clear that it was a decision I would never have had, were it anyone else but Ulver. I have wittnessed and heard of countless instances were Ulver's stubborness over a minor moral infraction (even though he has no problem with technicalities) are legendary. I wanted those couple islands in the Med for purely strategical reasons. .
In all fairness there was an element of a ‘war of hurt feelings’ on both sides. True, Spain had a far greater element of emotional investment and was willing to act far more irrational but it never made any sense to make an enemy of Spain over a few relative worthless rocks in the Mediterranean for France either. Those rocks were a symbol for both of us. That was why we both were willing to fight so hard for them and almost got locked in an embrace of death.
In many ways this conflict falls well within within the 18th centuries concept of a duel of honor so in a weird way it makes sort of sense.
Someone pointed out to me that fighting to death over this was never going to change anyone’s opinion. That, while true, totally misses the point. A duel is never fought to change the other guy’s opinion; it is fought to prove your courage and conviction in your own. In that sense only the stronger party can end it and walk away with honour for both sides intact. If the weaker side ends it it is cowardice, if the stronger does, it is good statesmanship. I could be agued we both won our duel as no one can reasonable claim that either backed down due to cowardice. Your long term position was stronger, allowing you to back down some. Spain won the initial battles allowing her to back down some. This allowed a brief window of opportunity for both sides to seek a way to leave the field honourably.
There was also an element of mutual respect in the prelude and fighting that helped. By giving proper notice to dissolve the Treaty of Paris France extended respect by implicitly acknowledging that Spain had not broken the treaty. If France maintained the position that Spain had then she would be obliged to consider the treaty null and void with immediate effect. Spain responded by accepting the principle that France was, in principle, entitled to some compensation. We build on that during our peace talks.
That fact the our respective analyses of the war and its likely consequences was almost identical also helped considerably. Obviously we both thought the other an intelligent and insightful individual for agreeing with each other’s statements. The need to get out together or die together was actually something we agreed on fairly quickly. I also suspect we both faced some pressure from our allies urging us to let the other off the hook with dignity.
The real cause of the war was, as became clear, the widely diverging view of what happened and what ethical play is.
You felt deeply betrayed. As far as you were concerned we were allies and you expected me to not act against your interests. Forgive me for saying this but I suspect that you hadn’t studied the Treaty that in detail as your initially accused me of breaking it. The statement made about “allies help each other in war, that is what the treaty says.” Retrospectively that could be seen as flattering as you felt no need to read the fine print but at the time I found it deeply irritating considering the effort I put into helping JohnMK draft the treaty. This triggered the whole “A treaty says what it says not what you think it says” rant that helped bring about the war in mutual recriminations later.
What it eventually came down to was your feeling of betrayal over me breaking the spirit if not the letter of the treaty. This implicit accusation of deceit angered me to the point of being almost eager to fight a war to the death. Again it is a case of being in complete disagreement over what the spirit of the treaty was. To me the place where one tries, however inadequately, to codify something as airily as the ‘spirit’ of an agreement is in the preamble. It might surprise you that I actually did consider the preamble of the treaty before I took the actions I did.
The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in God and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to safeguard the honor, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of faith in God, Jesus as Savior, the rule of law, and economic growth. They seek to promote stability, balance of power and well being in Europe. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of such goals. They therefore agree to this Treaty of Paris.
The first thing one notice is that it is mostly meaningless self-righteous babbling. However it does state an intention to preserve the stability and balance of power in Europe. In many ways the preamble actually emphasizes that this is a defensive agreement meant to preserve the status quo not an offensive agreement to wage war jointly for conquest. I realise you considered your war of retribution against Austria necessitated by self-defence and the fact that there was new Austrian leadership was irrelevant. I didn’t. I had made that very clear both privately and publicly. You felt Austria had stabbed you once to many times, I felt a new leader deserved a clean slate and an immediate attack with a million man after you had prevented his predecessor from building more then 100000 amounted to beating up on a man lying down. You felt you were preserving the peace by making sure there would be no more surprise attacks from Austria. I felt you were abusing a treaty designed to prevent war as a shield from behind which to wage war.
I hope I have presented your position fairly. I belive we both made our respective positions as I describe them very clear to each other.
Eventually I felt I was actually doing the ethical thing by giving Austria some assistance as you had pretty much reduced her to helplessness and was – in my opinion – planning to dismember her. I was actually helped in this by the fact that I had nothing to gain and you were always going to win the war anyway. I did regret not informing you beforehand, my only excuse is that I hadn’t hade the decision when we talked on ICQ. Clearly you had a right to know and for what it is worth I fully intended to tell you. My only – inadequate - defence is that I did tell you in advance that I considered your actions objectionably on grounds of ‘fair play’. Given my track record of, as you put it, legendary stubbornness, in these matters someone less touchingly trusting might have expected precisely the action that followed.
The bottom line is that you felt you had caught me in a deeply immoral act while I felt I had done nothing wrong.
I suspect we both considered our own actions beyond reproach and attributed the worst possible motives to the other. Consequently this was always going to be a war about honour not territory.
What ended it was a mutual acceptance that the other was honest in presenting his view and the our own view of these things was in no way obvious but, as they always are, subjective.
I supposed you can say we agreed to disagree.
