-
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.
)
I vote Aye. It should have been clear that trying to gain that much power for the army would never succeed, powers to rival the NKVD combined with the man power of the entire military is insanity. Between her proposition and allowing dangerous reactionaries to rise in the military I fully support the censure of Julia Wjatscheslawowna Rakobolskaja.
N.K. Glazkov
N.K. Glazkov
New poll:
Motion to censure Rakobolskaja
Aye: 3 (Sokolov, Yakushev, Glazkov)
Nay: 3 (Rakobolskaja, Vatutin, Gey)
Motion to censure Rakobolskaja
Aye: 3 (Sokolov, Yakushev, Glazkov)
Nay: 3 (Rakobolskaja, Vatutin, Gey)
Last edited:
Since your prosecutors visited Defense only for being part in the Feb3 investigations and therefore only received seized documents, I'm interested how the missing paperwork of some traitors could possibly prove the incompetence of someone not being member of them.
Also, it's shocking to see your poor knowledge about the things happened on February 3. To repeat:
This coup was NOT a long planned coup. It was not known to me who was part of that network, else than General Vasilevsky (the evidence against his fellows was only gained due to the paperwork we seized at his headquarters). I'm interested, how I could possibly prevent, that storming the headquarter of our major direction doesn't results in some soldiers fighting back (not necessarily because they're traitors themselves) - which gives their Commander-in-Chief the chance to radio his last standing out. Each physicist is able to tell you, that there's no way to 'kill' radio waves, other than destroying their source. Yes, I'm guilty for having the knowledge this network existed before the coup happened. However, immediately after gaining that knowledge, I ordered the arrestment of the networks head (at this point the only one we knew his identity) - something you usually do with people you think they're guilty of a crime.
--
As for your running vote:
Apart from the fact, that the vote itself is invalid, it's interesting to see, that you belive warning someone for being incompetent and promoted too far, magically turns this very person into being incredibly competent.
If you've some crime to punish me for, call a official trial - your vote is no trial.
If you think a politburo's member is incompetent, call a demotion vote on him/her.
Our very own legislation doesn't allow censoring a politburo's member by a simple vote - this are all possible causes for a member being warned:
- a decree he/she proposed gets beaten by a 2/3 margin
- a trial finds him/her guilty, and Stalin judges censure is the appropiate punishment
The running vote is invalid, as stated above, and therefore not binding to anyone (sure Justice is permitted to continue voting - that's each members right - however the result possesses no real worth, since a invalid vote cannot magically create a valid decree).
I'll refrain on voting on something invalid.
Comrade Rakobolskaja,
Political Law 11.4.2 clearly states that any (full) member of the Politburo may request a vote of censure.
As for your "substantive" comments, it will suffice to say that you are very selective what you reply to. I could write an essay regarding how exactly the evidence proves your incompetence in the matter, but even if your points were valid (which they are not), the case stands.
I advise you to take the punishment of censure, which is very mild, and let us continue governing our Union.
Feodor Vasilevich Sokolov, Commissar for Justice
((To verify: it's under the section Loss of Seniority in the OP, which I've reproduced here:
Loss of seniority: If any vote is defeated by a measure of 2:1 (excluding abstentions), the person proposing the measure will lose their seniority (i.e., bumped to the end of the full Politburo list), as it is a clear lack of confidence in that person. Also, any Politburo member can request a vote of censure (loss of seniority), which requires a simple majority.
))
Loss of seniority: If any vote is defeated by a measure of 2:1 (excluding abstentions), the person proposing the measure will lose their seniority (i.e., bumped to the end of the full Politburo list), as it is a clear lack of confidence in that person. Also, any Politburo member can request a vote of censure (loss of seniority), which requires a simple majority.
))
((Sorry, my fault. I was only aware of the demotion thing.))
Well, I'm not too competent on law issues - obviously also not my job - so my previous claim of invalidness doesn't stand anymore, thanks for clarification.
Anyhow, for me to accept censure, you've to enlist the full single majority - currently six.
--
Comrades,
With the inability of Sokolov to collect evidence (if he had, he would simply distribute it, instead of talking about how incredibly clear that evidence is), there stands nothing more than to warn me for my supposed incompetence. Since it's doubtable that I'll become more competent because of a formal warning, I suppose that vote is mere a political intrigue, than anything of substance.
Nobody will willingly support a political intrigue against themself, therefore I vote Nay.
Tovarish
Although I understand the concerns expressed by certain members of the Politburo about Comrade Rakobolskaja, I believe that the proposal of censure is unwarranted in this instance.
I am worried by the procedural irregularity of calling a trial, which is a very serious step, and then abandonning the trial after the Defence had stated their case for innocence but before the jury had the opportunity to hear the merit of the Prosecution's case. This does give the impression of a somewhat weak case brought for capricious reasons. It is also a concern that the abandonned trial is then followed by a vote of censure which is one of the penalties which can be meted out following a trial which therefore appears to be an attempt to circumvent the legal system.
I must say that in none of this do I blame the NK Justice as they were compelled to act following the precipitous conduct of the NKVD. I see this as the unfortunate consequence of the apparent policy of the NKVD at the present to shot first and ask questions later.
I call upon the members of the Politburo to listen to the voice of reason, to end these trials and tribulations, and to vote Nyet to this censure. Remember, all it takes for the NKVD to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.
I confirm my vote of Nyet to the motion to censure Comrade Rakobolskaja.
Yours fraternally
NF Vatutin (Lt Gen)
NGSh
Although I understand the concerns expressed by certain members of the Politburo about Comrade Rakobolskaja, I believe that the proposal of censure is unwarranted in this instance.
I am worried by the procedural irregularity of calling a trial, which is a very serious step, and then abandonning the trial after the Defence had stated their case for innocence but before the jury had the opportunity to hear the merit of the Prosecution's case. This does give the impression of a somewhat weak case brought for capricious reasons. It is also a concern that the abandonned trial is then followed by a vote of censure which is one of the penalties which can be meted out following a trial which therefore appears to be an attempt to circumvent the legal system.
I must say that in none of this do I blame the NK Justice as they were compelled to act following the precipitous conduct of the NKVD. I see this as the unfortunate consequence of the apparent policy of the NKVD at the present to shot first and ask questions later.
I call upon the members of the Politburo to listen to the voice of reason, to end these trials and tribulations, and to vote Nyet to this censure. Remember, all it takes for the NKVD to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.
I confirm my vote of Nyet to the motion to censure Comrade Rakobolskaja.
Yours fraternally
NF Vatutin (Lt Gen)
NGSh
As for substantive:
Both Yagoda and you are telling me (and the rest of the politburo) how incredibly clear and substantive your evidence is - I've never seen any piece of the "evidence" you (or Yagoda) had collected. In almost each letter you're trying to convince me, that I should confess something I'm not guilty for, and should be happy for you being so grateful to punish me mild for something I deserve no punishment at all.
Gey wanders into the room, listens to the debate and loudly interrupts the conversations.
I vote nay. The NKVD is overstepping its boundaries, and ignoring our Soviet law. Censuring Comrade Rakobolskaja does nothing worthwhile, and I see no point in agreeing to have her censured.
~ NK K. I. Gey
I vote nay. The NKVD is overstepping its boundaries, and ignoring our Soviet law. Censuring Comrade Rakobolskaja does nothing worthwhile, and I see no point in agreeing to have her censured.
~ NK K. I. Gey
Comrades,
Your comments regarding the NKVD are not something I can reply to, but I'm sure Comrade Yagoda will wish to defend his point of view. Your distaste of the NKVD's actions, however, should not affect this debate. Completely unrelated to the quarrels between their departments, leading to a Red Army blockade of two offices of state, Comrade Rakabolskaja failed to see the coup coming herself, even though evidence suggests she could have prevented it. The main evidence will be sent to you within short notice.
Maj. Gen. Feodor Vasilevich Sokolov
Table of Contents
Attachments to the vote of Julia Wjatscheslawowna Rakobolskaja's censure
Evidence No.1:
Statement of the Moscow Chief of Communications regarding the contents of his raided archives
Evidence No.2:
All documents given to the Commissariat of Justice, which notably exclude the audio transcripts of communication between Julia Wjatscheslawowna Rakobolskaja and the Commander of the Western Direction over the past year, which were mentioned in Evidence No. 1.
Evidence No.3:
Document 212, handed to the Commissariat of Justice, showing that the Chief Secretary of the Commissariat of Defense was involved in the coup.
Evidence No.4:
Document 442, about the arrest of the Chief Secretary of the Commissariat of Defense by order of the Commissar of Defense two days after the coup.
Evidence No.5:
Statement of clerk Andrej Kamarov to the Chief Secretary of the Commissariat of Defense that they warned the Commissar of Defense about possible reactionary elements in their chief's organization.
Evidence No.6:
Letter sent by Andrej Kamarov to Julia Wjatscheslawowna Rakobolskaja, containing several warnings about the coup. Letter seized by the NKVD.
Evidence No.7:
Official document, signed by Julia Wjatscheslawowna Rakobolskaja, dismissing the possibility of an investigation. Document seized by the NKVD.
Attachments to the vote of Julia Wjatscheslawowna Rakobolskaja's censure
Evidence No.1:
Statement of the Moscow Chief of Communications regarding the contents of his raided archives
Evidence No.2:
All documents given to the Commissariat of Justice, which notably exclude the audio transcripts of communication between Julia Wjatscheslawowna Rakobolskaja and the Commander of the Western Direction over the past year, which were mentioned in Evidence No. 1.
Evidence No.3:
Document 212, handed to the Commissariat of Justice, showing that the Chief Secretary of the Commissariat of Defense was involved in the coup.
Evidence No.4:
Document 442, about the arrest of the Chief Secretary of the Commissariat of Defense by order of the Commissar of Defense two days after the coup.
Evidence No.5:
Statement of clerk Andrej Kamarov to the Chief Secretary of the Commissariat of Defense that they warned the Commissar of Defense about possible reactionary elements in their chief's organization.
Evidence No.6:
Letter sent by Andrej Kamarov to Julia Wjatscheslawowna Rakobolskaja, containing several warnings about the coup. Letter seized by the NKVD.
Evidence No.7:
Official document, signed by Julia Wjatscheslawowna Rakobolskaja, dismissing the possibility of an investigation. Document seized by the NKVD.
((I won't be around much today. I have my kids. Let me know if I get purged LMAO!))
Sakharov is sitting quietly in deep though. Suddenly he speaks up.
If there is indeed counter-revolutionary scum in the Commisariat of Defense, there might be reason to suggest that Comrade Rakobolskaja is innocent. Since her Chief Secratary was part of the plot, he might have censored and/or withheld information from the Commisar herself. It is not impossible, nor even improbable. In addition to this, the Commisar has conducted her job adequately for a year. I will not convict her on the basis of this evidence. To re-state this; She might not have gotten all info that Comrade Yakushev claims she has, as her Chief Secretary was part of the plot, and might have withheld information from her. In addition she has served us well until now. On this basis I vote against the censure of Comrade NK Rakobolskaja.
V.M. Sakharov, NK Finance
If there is indeed counter-revolutionary scum in the Commisariat of Defense, there might be reason to suggest that Comrade Rakobolskaja is innocent. Since her Chief Secratary was part of the plot, he might have censored and/or withheld information from the Commisar herself. It is not impossible, nor even improbable. In addition to this, the Commisar has conducted her job adequately for a year. I will not convict her on the basis of this evidence. To re-state this; She might not have gotten all info that Comrade Yakushev claims she has, as her Chief Secretary was part of the plot, and might have withheld information from her. In addition she has served us well until now. On this basis I vote against the censure of Comrade NK Rakobolskaja.
V.M. Sakharov, NK Finance
Last edited:
Comrades, I have thought long and hard on my position in the final vote. My love, forgive me, for I am voting against your desires, but only for the good of the state. I will inform you soon of great news that I have that involves you and I.
I vote Nay on censuring.
I vote Nay on censuring.