AltHist-A: Shall We Try Again?

[montesaurus]

4. Poland will cede Saxony and Lusatia to Poland 
I presume Terje you mean't "to Prussia"[:)]
Prussia will now do it's turn, offering a cease fire, and expect the ceding of territories to occur, the following turn.
If there are variances to this, then I fully expect Europeon powers to enforce the agreement.
 

[montesaurus]

Prussian turn is done.

[Anthropoid]

Despite the French Monarch's attempt to paint Russia in a poor light, I spoke sincerely before when I said that I felt betrayed by Poland. During the initial "months" (the days we've been playing) I was bombarded with a host of communiques from Poland which initially contributed to themes of "Poland becoming a more or less permanent protectorate of Russia." These communiques originated from Poland, meaning they did not emerge as a result of Russia menacing or demanding anything from Poland. The terms that were discussed involved Russia making a substantial commitment to "protect" Poland, and in exchange for this protection, Poland agreed to a Treaty that would involve ceding three provinces to Russia (Courland, Kovno and Volhynia) as well as an RoP, shared depots, enforced peace, and various other clauses that cannot be written into the game engine that involved commitments by Russia and Poland to mutually defend one another. No other nations were privy to these communiques. I sent exactly such a treaty to Poland a turn or two ago, and it was rejected. This combined with shifting rhetoric by Poland have convinced me that I should not trust Poland, and it was on this basis that I Declared War.
 
I don't think I need to elaborate on how similar this 'changing of tune' behavior is to that which Poland just exhibited above in this thread?
 
Russia is amenable to a reasonable peace settlement.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Despite the French Monarch's attempt to paint Russia in a poor light, I spoke sincerely before when I said that I felt betrayed by Poland.

All France has done is revealed the truth of the matter to those who might not know. If this places Russia in a bad light, that is to say, reveals what has actually taken place, it might be wise to consider the appearance of your conduct.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Mus

We have Declared a state of War on Poland (note, Russian forces were moved outside of Poland before this DoW was made) and we intend to occupy the eastern provinces of Poland which are rightfully part of Russia.

LOL, this just makes the Russian perfidy here blatant.

This means that while the Czar was condemning Prussian moves against Poland and agreeing to help defend the Poles last turn he was actually making movements in order to be able to declare war this turn.

You claim you have merely "revealed the truth." What you accuse above is quite simply untrue. During the last turn I played (3? have not seen a fourth yet) I realized that Poland was shifting in her rhetoric and had not accepted in fact to the treaty which she had said in PMs she agreed to. In sum, prior to playing turn 3, Poland had made it clear she accepted the treaty I had laid out. When I opened turn 3, I realized she had not acted on her words.

I moved my forces outside of Poland (Zhytomyr to Kiev). I then DoWed Poland.

It is as simple as that, and yet the French Monarch was amazingly quick to reach all sorts of unfounded conclusions and indeed to accuse Russia of pre-meditated deception in a situation with an almost complete absence of proof to formulate such a conclusion.

It is Poland who agreed in PMs with me to the terms of the treaty (ceding of Courland, Kovno, and Volhynia, RoP, Shared Depots, etc.) and then when this treaty was offered rejected it. It was Poland who _asked_ to become a "more-or-less permanent protectorate of Russia" and then when offered a treaty to set that arrangement in motion rejected it.

Indeed, Russia was quick to act, but let us remember the old Cossack saying "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me." Let us not confuse a quick and cautionary evasion of betrayal as "blatant perfidy." I am as trustworthy, as any Monarch in Europe, indeed my actions show I am more trustworthy certainly than the leader of Poland, and one begins to wonder also about the Monarch of France as well. Gentlemen do not sling insults like "blatant perfidy" at fellow nobles based on nothing more than emotion, selfish motivations, and an imperfect appreciation of facts.

And why exactly does France take such a profound and outspoken interest in the affairs of a nation with whom she does not share an boundaries? The courts in Berlin and Vienna would do well to heed the tidings marked by French rhetoric at this stage.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

In sum, prior to playing turn 3, Poland had made it clear she accepted the treaty I had laid out. When I opened turn 3, I realized she had not acted on her words.

In reality the negotiations as to the terms of the agreement were ongoing as no agreement had yet been signed. You were told prior to receipt of the treaty you sent that your proposal wasn't going to fly.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

It is as simple as that, and yet the French Monarch was amazingly quick to reach all sorts of unfounded conclusions and indeed to accuse Russia of pre-meditated deception in a situation with an almost complete absence of proof to formulate such a conclusion...Indeed, Russia was quick to act...I am as trustworthy, as any Monarch in Europe, indeed my actions show I am more trustworthy certainly than the leader of Poland, and one begins to wonder also about the Monarch of France as well. Gentlemen do not sling insults like "blatant perfidy" at fellow nobles based on nothing more than emotion, selfish motivations, and an imperfect appreciation of facts.

The terms you proposed are there for all to see, and it should become IMMEDIATELY OBVIOUS to all why they were rejected.

In fact, the signing of the treaty you proposed would have immediately resulted in a state of war between Russia and Prussia, because of the mutual defense clause you included in it. This would have resulted in Austria, true to it's word, declaring war on Poland and presumably Russia as well, with France and Turkey, as we had promised, coming to the defense of Poland in turn by declaring war on Austria and Prussia.

In short, the treaty you sent, that you were told would be rejected prior to its receipt by Poland, would have resulted in the general European war that many monarchs were working hard to avoid.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

The courts in Berlin and Vienna would do well to heed the tidings marked by French rhetoric at this stage.

Yes indeed they would. Look at what I have said, ALL OF WHICH IS TRUE, and look at the wording of the treaty the Russians proposed. The state of war between Russia and Prussia would have been immediate and all else would have followed from it.

What would have been the result of this treaty but war between a half dozen nations and countless deaths?

Treaty attached here so people can see the truth:

[Marshal Villars]

Again, Poland will accept any arbitration deal declared by France and Britain based on the facts they now know.

We will accept it unconditionally. And as a result we will accept the cease fire whatever happens.

Will Britain or France propose the final peace deal? And what kind of guarantees do I have that Prussia will honor it?

What is the proposed method of ending the conflict precisely?

Will Prussia surrender to Poland? Or will it end by cease fire?

Most sincerely,

Poniatowski
First Consul of the Commonwealth of Poland

[Marshal Villars]

We have no problem with the way the Russian Tsar does business. However, we fear Russia. And hence, wanted to become its protectorate -- for a price. We simply don't know whom to trust anymore.

Everyone is working hard in this ridiculously fluid game with quickly shifting sands. It is crazy diplomacy.

[Anthropoid]

Mus, the treaty you quote was agreed to in PMs by Poland, but was then rejected when the turn was completed.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Mus, the treaty you quote was agreed to in PMs by Poland, but was then rejected when the turn was completed.

Yes and the reason it was rejected is because it would have caused a massive war.

[Marshal Villars]

Yes. The only reason that treaty was rejected was because Russia would have gone to war with Prussia. And that would have triggered Austrian entry. Sometimes there is only time for 43 emails between turns and not 44!

[Randomizer]

Vienna has been paying attention to what is transpiring and fears that there are forces at work intent upon turning Europe into a charnel house.  Poland's stated war aim against Prussia was Breslau, and that province has been offered up in good faith by Prussia based upon the formula issued by the Anglo_French Newcastle Brown Ale convention.
 
Having declared that they wouls accept ANY terms agreed to by his own allies, Poland has changed the rules and wants MORE.
 
There is no linkage between the Prussian-Polish War and the Russo-Polish dispute.
 
Poland demands a "Final Draft" of a peace proposal they already agreed too but changed their minds about after Prussian acceptance.
 
Poland demands guarentees of Prussian compliance although they offer none that they will not change their minds again and make new demands.
 
Vienna is growing weary of the shifting sands surrounding Polish diplomacy.
 
Unless France, Britain and Turkey bring their overly belligerant Ally to heal, the Massive European War we all fear might well become a reality.
 
Austria suggests:
1.  Immediate Cease Fire between Prussia and Poland.
 
2.  Acceptance of the Newcastle Brown Ale peace formula from Post #251 with Point 4 amended from:
 
Poland will cede Saxony and Lusatia to Poland
to
Poland will cede Saxony and Lusatia to Prussia
 
3.  Russo-Polish Cease fire in place effective November 1792 (or earlier if both sides agree).
 
4.  Austria offers itself as a mediator in the Russo-Polish dispute.
 
The combination of less than steller diplomacy by all parties and the minor provinces in dispute are hardly worth a General European War.

[Marshal Villars]

1) What is Hungarian for horse manure? Poland called for arbitration. Poland wants a FAIR arbitration process. I do not see a posting indicating that Poland will accept the ruling of an arbitration process as meaning in ANY WAY that Poland shall have no input in the arbitration process! Where in the world do such notions of arbitration come from? Is it a Tyrolian custom that someone asking for arbitration should have no input in the process?

2) Poland's stated rational and conciliatory PRE-WAR aim was Breslau. PRUSSIA forced us to GO TO WAR for that by refusing ANY room for negotiation. This imposed MASSIVE costs on Poland and forced us into deals and negotiations which we would have rather not been part of. In fact, AUSTRIA, by threatening to take the side of greedy Prussia FORCED US into these negotiations--it wasn't even Prussia! We could have dealt with Prussia alone as was amply demonstrated. Once all the manure hit the butter maker and Prussia was within 1-2 turns of chaos and crumbling, and Poland had searched Europe for a protector against Austrian support of an illegal land grab, offering valuable Polish lands in the process to save Cracow--YES MORE. Is that a surprise? If I wanted to, I could have sat there, destroyed Prussia, eliminated one of its protectorates, forced its loss of Eastern Prussia, and walked away with Breslau, Lusatia, and Saxony (in all likelihood). More? Yes. You bet more. Prussia should have settled before things got out of control for everyone. It would have been as easy as Breslau.

France and Britain have been notified that Poland does not want any more of Prussia than Breslau. Prussia is not to be humiliated.

However, the war and its arbitration process could have a massive effect on Poland of up to a -6/-7 province outcome from a war in which Austria had not threatened to intervene and in which Poland would have simply decided to steam roll Prussia rather than offer arbitration to show how reasonable we were and did not want to cripple Prussia!
1) By staying in Prussia and Berlin, we could have had at least three Prussian/Saxon provinces, stripped Prussia of Eastern Prussia and occupied it. We would have knocked out one of the Prussian protectorates as well. Repeated gaming of this war by my general staff showed that the Prussian army would not have been able to stop us. This would have ALSO secured a solid Saxon Corps of three divisions, which we will now be losing.
2) By threatening to get involved Austria has possibly cost us three provinces of eastern Poland.

I have informed Britain and France, that now that they have been told my side of the story, I WILL accept any ruling of theirs UNCONDITIONALLY.

However, I have no problem with Austrian involvement in the process as I would like the decision to have international recognition and Poland has no major problem with Vienna. However, for the first time Austria knows that it was her that may cost Poland three provinces. So perhaps we should be asking for Austrian provinces as compensation? But Poland is not interested in that.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

There is no linkage between the Prussian-Polish War and the Russo-Polish dispute.

There certainly is. The Russians wanted to enter the war against Prussia and start a larger war. Feeling betrayed by Polish refusal to sign such a treaty they apparently had to have blood and are declaring war on Poland.

Regardless, Poland has expressed a willingness to accept the settlement as outlined by Britain/France.

Regarding Russia, we hope Austria will join other countries in demanding that Russia withdraw its troops and stand down immediately.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Mus, the treaty you quote was agreed to in PMs by Poland, but was then rejected when the turn was completed.

Yes and the reason it was rejected is because it would have caused a massive war.

If this honestly was the sole basis of the rejection, then a true basis for compromise and reconciliation is easily at hand.

When Turn 4 is opened, everyone will see that Poland and Russia _are_ at war. I am not going to "replay" my turn. I made a decision based on the vacillatory nature of Polish diplomacy (whether malicious or not) that I needed to demonstrate the negative-consequences of a failure in relations. Now that explanations are forthcoming, a basis for Poland (etc.) to demonstrate her veracity has been established.

If in fact, Poland agrees to the all the terms that were agreed upon (ceding of Courland, Kovno, Volhynia, as well as the cooperative clauses, etc.) EXCEPT the mutual defense pact clause, then the simplest solution is as follows: now that a state of war exists between Russia and Poland, when Turn 4 is opened, then Poland evacuates all forces from Courland, Kovno and Volhynia, Russia will move forces into these three provinces to occupy them, and will make no additional moves into any other Polish provinces after that. When the four-month threshold period is elapsed, Poland surrenders to Russia, and I will offer terms of surrender that include the ceding of the occupied provinces. If there are insufficient points to allow the other clauses (RoP, enforced peace, sharing depots), then a second treaty can be drafted and ratified.

At this stage, I remain skeptical that Poland and her distant allies who take such great interest in the far away places will actually follow through with the deal. I eagerly await the disappointment of these negative expectations, and a resumption of a state of trust and cooperative friendship with Poland and her allies.

I honestly feel that Russia might have been better off not to have been drug into this whole affair. My _first_ actions with respect to Poland were (a) frustration that I had to engage in a breach of Polish neutrality just to get my forces back into Russian territory; followed by (b) an evacuation of my forces from Polish territory; and then (c) open dialogue with France, Turkey, and Poland on good-faith terms and in response to Polish _requests_ for Polish protection. The clause of mutual defense was at one early stage in our dialogue SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED BY BOTH FRANCE, AND POLAND, though indeed, at a later stage (after I had drafted and transmitted the treaty) France and Poland changed their minds about the inclusion of such a clause.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

There is no linkage between the Prussian-Polish War and the Russo-Polish dispute.

There certainly is. The Russians wanted to enter the war against Prussia and start a larger war. . .

THAT Mssr is a BLATANT LIE! You have insulted my honour with your incessant tarring of the Czar's character, I must protest, and INSIST that you desist in full with your ungentlemanly MUD-SLINGING. You test my patience with your bending of the facts to suit you King of France. Once again you have spoken out of turn, and made attributions of the Czars character, merit, and intent which you are in NO POSITION to make, and indeed, are contrary to the facts of our previous dialogues.

Indeed, if I do not receive an explicit public apology for the twisted slandering of my character which you have now incessantly engaged, you may consider Russia's attitude toward France to have been more-or-less permanently SOURED.

As I said above, in early stages of our three-way dialogue (Russia, France, Poland) about cooperating to preserve peace in the face of the Prusso-Polish conflict, it was specifically REQUESTED that a mutual defense/immediate declaration of war clause be included in the Treaty. The treaty I submitted was inline with these initial requests from Poland/France, but in the interim between the request and the completion of the turn, the Poles and French changed their minds about this clause.

In hindsight, I can now see that, perhaps initially there was no intent to deceive . . . perhaps there was simply a sincere recognition by Poland/France based on changing diplomatic conditions (as well as Polish success on the battlefield?) that Russias entry to war against Prussia would not ideally serve their interests. Very well. You changed your minds, and (perhaps) that really was the sole basis for rejecting the treaty I offered (while simultaneously Poland offered her own treaty ?? hmmm . . . very suspicious . . .). Up until the recent discussions, the actions of Poland and France can be characterized as potentially sincere, and not duplicitious.

I do not think the same can be said with equal confidence about either Polish or French communiques here in the open international forum these past two thread-pages . . .

[terje439]

Britain just want to say that she cannot give Poland any territorial rights in the Germanic states, as that is an issue she must confer with France, Preussia and Austria-Hungary about.
If such grants are given, Britain has no issues about this whatsoever.

KGVIVIVI

[Randomizer]

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

There is no linkage between the Prussian-Polish War and the Russo-Polish dispute.

There certainly is. The Russians wanted to enter the war against Prussia and start a larger war. Feeling betrayed by Polish refusal to sign such a treaty they apparently had to have blood and are declaring war on Poland

Prussia and Russia are not Allies in Poland and even co-belligerants is not an accurate description of the military relationship between them because there is none. They are more like coincidental combattents, both fighting Poland for their own reasons and one having nothing whatsoever to do with the other. Linkage only exists in the eyes of Poland and perhaps those who view this crisis solely through a prism ground in Warsaw.

Austria's position remains that Poland must accept the original peace offer (Post #251) as accepted by Prussia to end that conflict and offers to mediate in the Russo-Polish dispute.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Now that explanations are forthcoming, a basis for Poland (etc.) to demonstrate her veracity has been established.

The opportunity to demonstrate veracity is on the part of Russia.

It is your honesty and whether the Czar loves peace or war that is at question here.

You declared war on Poland to punish the rejection of a treaty that would have plunged all of Europe into war. You did this in the middle of negotiations, going incommunicado with countries you were supposedly friendly with and have since declared war on one of them.

Withdraw your troops to Russian territory, sign a ceasefire with Poland at the earliest convenience, and negotiate a mutually beneficial arrangement with Poland that doesn't involve force of arms.

Since Poland told you it was rejecting your treaty and proposing it's own treaties in stages and specifically spelled out those stages, IN FRONT OF WITNESSES, Poland's veracity is not in question.

If Russia doesn't want to be viewed as a liar and warmonger stop telling lies and starting wars.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

THAT Mssr is a BLATANT LIE!

You proposed a treaty that would have immediately resulted in war between Prussia and Russia. It logically follows that war with Prussia was the result desired by the person who proposed the treaty. YOU.

Everyone can see the treaty you proposed and see it for what it is. Those who pretend it is something else do so out of self serving political motives, the objective truth is self evident.

When I explained that a mutual defense clause shouldn't be sent or signed (regardless of whatever you and Poland were talking about in private) and you were told it wouldn't be signed you acted like you had no problem with that. Next thing you know Russia is beating war drums and sending threatening messages.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Indeed, if I do not receive an explicit public apology for the twisted slandering of my character which you have now incessantly engaged, you may consider Russia's attitude toward France to have been more-or-less permanently SOURED.

It is only a matter of time before a mad dog slips his leash anyways, so France had considered our relations already soured after the declaration of war with Poland. Russian friendship is so fickle and it's foreign policy so erratic that good relations seem of little value.

With friends like Russia who needs enemies?

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

As I said above, in early stages of our three-way dialogue (Russia, France, Poland) about cooperating to preserve peace in the face of the Prusso-Polish conflict, it was specifically REQUESTED that a mutual defense/immediate declaration of war clause be included in the Treaty.

Again, I can't speak to what you and Poland had supposedly discussed privately, but my first mention of a mutual defense clause was that it SHOULD NOT be included or signed.

FRANCE NEVER REQUESTED RUSSIA SIGN A MUTUAL DEFENSE PACT WITH POLAND. FRANCE SPECIFICALLY SPOKE AGAINST IT.

The only action ever requested of Russia by France was to move troops towards Krakow, the Polish capital, in order to be able to defend it in the unfortunate event that negotiations failed and the war widened.

Everyone I have dealt with diplomatically knows I don't like mutual defense pacts. They trigger automatic declarations of war and plunge all of Europe into war on the whim of one person (in this case the Russian Czar). Enforced alliances with verbal agreements to come to each other's defense conditionally serve the same purpose while allowing time for negotiations in cases of mistaken declarations (such as through PBEM policies).

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

Linkage only exists in the eyes of Poland and perhaps those who view this crisis solely through a prism ground in Warsaw.

Some kind of lens might be in order for those who can't read/comprehend the plain language of the treaty proposed by Russia which would have started a broader European war.

This treaty and it's refusal is the DIRECT LINK between the two issues.

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

Austria's position remains that Poland must accept the original peace offer (Post #251) as accepted by Prussia to end that conflict and offers to mediate in the Russo-Polish dispute.

Since Poland has now stated two times that he will accept the offer we are really concerned for our Austrian friends.

I hope the reading comprehension issues appearing in Austrian and Russian courts are not caused by some communicable agent. Perhaps my diplomats and couriers should be told to keep their distance.