Matrix Games Forums

BTW What are we waiting on for next turn?

Not sure why the delay but it is sure facilitating some 'interesting' diplomacy!
 
Now climbing back into character...
 
His Excellency Poinatowski, First Consul of Poland has written:

Poland is willing to accept this deal as presented if we are given two additional territory in Germany

This is hardly an acceptance, rather it constitutes a demand for German principalities in the West, exactly the trigger that started hostilities between Prussia and Poland in the first place.  Subsequent claims of acceptance have also included a caveat that Poland must be compensated for its folly in enraging the Czar.  France is being disengenuous to insist that Poland's two-wars on two-fronts against seperate and non-allied Nations are causal not coincidental.
 
Meanwhile Prussia has unconditionally accepted the Peace Formula, having only identified a minor clerical error in Item 4 of the draught proposal.
 
Austria takes a dim view of the prospect of Polish gains at the expense of the independent German states regardless of any territorial losses to Russia incurred.

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

This is hardly an acceptance, rather it constitutes a demand for German principalities in the West, exactly the trigger that started hostilities between Prussia and Poland in the first place.

Actually the trigger of hostilities was Prussia launching an ill-advised sneak attack on Saxony without notifying anyone of the intention.

Since the statement you quoted, Poland has stated twice willingness to accept the agreement as outlined which you have either not bothered to read or simply ignored:

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

Again, I am still willing to accept any peace dictated by France and Britain--no questions asked. This has not changed. But they must know of the costs I have suffered.

ORIGINAL: 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.

This should put an end to nonsense claims that Poland has rejected the arbitration proposal.

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

France is being disengenuous to insist that Poland's two-wars on two-fronts against seperate and non-allied Nations are causal not coincidental.

It is Austria that is being disengenuous at this point. Poland could have accepted Russian demands and Prussia would have been crippled or destroyed completely in the resulting war.

It is Poland's desire to see a negotiated settlement and avoid a larger European war (and Russia's desire apparently for the opposite) that caused the war with Russia.

These are the facts:

1. Russia offered a treaty which would have resulted in immediate war between Russia and Prussia.

Screenshot of that treaty already posted for everyone to see, with the critical clause highlighted. Everyone can open their T3 files and see it as it is a public treaty.

2. Russia admitted that the rejection of this treaty was his reason for declaring war on Poland, even though he is obviously wrong in regard to the particulars of the treaty which clearly contains a mutual defense clause he was specifically told not to send:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

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.

A clearly causal relationship. Poland is obviously the wronged party here.

If Austria is viewing the situation with such a jaundiced eye how could anyone view their mediation as helpful? Originally you seemed willing to help bring about a peaceful resolution to this situation which I was grateful for, but increasingly the tone and willfully ignorant nature of your comments have seemed to communicate an intent to foment crisis rather than ameliorate it.

France calls on all nations who love peace to demand that Russia withdraw troops from Poland and sign a cease fire as soon as possible.

I am doing my turn right now.

Wait...what GUARANTEE does Poland have that Prussia will comply with the settlement after we have left her lands?

Russia is sick and tired of France's twisting of words, and slandering of our character, not to mention butting into matters that really should be of little concern to her. You were not privy to the diplomatic communiques (PMs) between Poland and Russia, and yet, you have been the quickest and most outspoken to judge Russia. I'm sure the intrinsic insights of this bias have not gone unnoticed by any of the other leaders in Europe. You are clearly less concerned with getting to the bottom of the matter and arriving at truth than you are at passing judgement against Russia and sticking doggedly to what you perceive to be in France's best interest. Point of note to those wishing to stay on France's "good side:" just do whatever she wants, even when it involves being deceived and misled by her vassal state, and do not protest, else you will be slandered as a "mad dog."

I was ASKED in PMs to form the treaty I offered. I offered it under the expectation that the person I was offering it to (Poniatowski of Poland, not Mus of France) WANTED it that way. They changed their mind between the time of asking me to formulate it and me offering it and they consequently rejected the treaty they had asked for. Based on their backing out of the treaty they had asked me to form, I sensed untrustworthiness and potential danger and I declared war to demonstrate in as clear a form as necessary that I will not tolerate Poland saying one thing and then doing another.

If my intent all along has been to spark a massive war, or to simply attack Poland in the first place, then why did I even bother to engage in the diplomatic talks with Poland, France, and Turkey? How does that get me anything? It gets me nothing, and the most logical explanation is that I did it, not to deceive or exploit, but in simple earnest.

Before my trust in Poland was broken, I was sinerely willing to act as the "Protector of Poland" as he asked. When I realized I was being asked to do one thing, but then my supposed "client" was behaving in an entirely different fashion I backed out of the relationship. Indeed, to NOT have declared war would have been even more foolish and weak on my part than to have trusted Poland in the first place.

As I said before, I am amenable to a reasonable peace. Poniatowski has already said (see the boldened text below) that he agrees to cede the three listed provinces. Based on this, I expect that the three listed provinces (Courland, Kovno, and Volhynia) _WILL_ be evacuated so that Russian troops will peacefully take control. As I said up above, after sufficient time has passed, Villars can surrender and we can finalize the deal.

This is the deal Poland has agreed to. There is no "warmongering" on Russia's part, we are simply insisting that Poland stand by its word.

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

Poland is willing to accept this deal as presented if we are given two additional territory in Germany.

Possible candidates include Brunswick, Hesse, Nassau or any other two contiguous minor states/provinces.

We simply want an official stamp of approval from Britain, France, Austria, and Prussia that these additional territories belongs to Polish interests and that we not enter a conflict with anyone when we seize them in the next months.

The fact that if the war continues that Prussia WILL collapse in two turns at the latest, may lose East Prussia to insurrection, and WILL lose Breslau and Saxony (or at the very least Lusatia) as a result and brought Poland to do something which we HATED doing just to claim what was ours, should be taken into account. I am not interested in punishing Prussia in this matter. Poland feels the alternative to demanding more land from Prussia (not desirable--as it can only lead to hard feelings) is to assign two German territories to Polish control.

Poland has paid a HEAVY price because of this conflict and has agreed to cede three provinces (Courland, Kovno, and one to be named) to Russia in exchange for protection against our strong-willed (and honorable) Prussian neighbors. We were reminded of this commitment in a diplomatic dispatch received just today. This is a price paid by Poland as a result of this war to enforce what virtually everyone in the international community saw as a fair deal concerning Saxony and Breslau.

If this cost is recognized with the international community's recognition of two Polish provinces in Germany, we will consider the decision to be fair and to take into account the tremendous costs, stresses, and losses which have been imposed on the people of Poland as a result of this.

Again, we are not interested in punishing Prussia (but will take Breslau as a swap) and would like to be compensated with Brunswick (or a comparable piece of real estate not too far removed) for all of the trouble we have been forced to go to and the deals we have been forced to make because of all of this.

We would like peace and to offer a cease fire to Prussia this turn. Please--let this be so with the recognition of two non-committed German territories as Polish.

Most sincerely,

Poniatowski
First Consul of the Polish Commonwealth

I do not think Russia was interested in sparking a massive war. And he is right, this is what I asked for at the time. Then suddenly fear of this developing into a general European war (I think a logical one on many nation's part) made me worry that that language was not good. If I could have cut out the clause and shifted the date of transfer of the provinces to Russia to AFTER the production of an infantry division I am awaiting in Courland next turn, I would have. But there is no way to do that.

After Austria's agreement not to get involved, the last thing I needed was the appearance that Russia was going to declare war on Prussia...and an advance on Cracow to make clear to Austria that Russia was there would have sufficed.

Poland does sincerely hope that France and Russia can make amends and can agree that the most likely reason for the misunderstanding between you both is because of the limited bandwidth of communication by email with so much "noise" being generated by third parties interested in destroying the diplomatic relationship.

Poniatowski has lived long enough to know that letters are no substitute for face to face interaction and are rife for misinterpretation.

In fact, I am beginning to believe that a root of 17th, 18th, and 19th century war was the miserable communication and the fact that the reader's mood has more of an impact on the interpretation of the written word than does the writer's intent.

Based on my reading of your communications, Paris would like to get along with Moscow and Moscow would like to get along with Paris. And I am here to say that Poland would like to make that happen.

Poniatowski

RUSSIA: This is the deal Poland has agreed to. There is no "warmongering" on Russia's part, we are simply insisting that Poland stand by its word.

Correct. This is the deal that Poland agreed to. And it was a deal made because of an AUSTRIAN threat to support an illegal Prussian claim on Polish lands (Saxony--a POLISH protectorate). Poland feels it should honor this agreement.

Again:
Poland agrees to end the war before the three to four provinces which we could have kept in Prussia/Saxony are ours AND agrees to honor its land deal with Russia made because of the Austrian threat of intervention = POLAND WAS SCREWED. To the tune of around 5 or 6 provinces.

We would like to thank the international community for all of this wonderful assistance. [8|].

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

If my intent all along has been to spark a massive war, or to simply attack Poland in the first place, then why did I even bother to engage in the diplomatic talks with Poland, France, and Turkey?

I don't pretend to understand the Czar.

It is interesting to see that in your mind Poland rejecting a treaty because it would have sparked a larger war is cause for war, but France shouldn't be angry at the Russian's BIZARRE decision to cancel signing the Warsaw Pact we had agreed on (which took a while to draft with all the clauses I might add) and precipitously declare war on one of the signers without explanation.

I think there is a Greek word for that.

Again, people can make statements about it however suits their political goals, but the truth of the matter is pretty cut and dried.

Austria sees this entire affair as a direct consequence of the alliance system.  Had Poland not sought to wrap itself in allies, Consul Poiniatowski could have had a simple stand-up territorial dispute with Prussia alone.  Austria would have stayed neutral in a bi-lateral war between its ally and Poland and had hostilities ceased with the capture of Breslau, the stated Polish war aim, there would have been no international crisis or threat of escalation and a wider conflict.
 
That is what is pretty cut and dried.

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

That is what is pretty cut and dried.

OOC: Yeah I agree that Poland is pretty much the bad guy in this whole thing. Why would a nation surrounded by potential enemies that historically got partitioned right around this time by its neighbors go looking for friends?

[8|]

Back in character:

France gives up trying to reason with unreasonable powers.

One thing, though perhaps not the only thing, that is "cut and dried" from the perspective of the Tzar, is that powers seeking to avoid these sorts of misunderstandings should, in future say ONLY what they mean, mean ONLY what they say, and do exactly as they say. (i) An alliance system is certainly a medium by which (ii) poorly phrased, gushing, effusive, rambling, inaccurate, vacillating diplomacy can lead to misunderstandings. But the former is neither a necessary nor suficient condition of diplomatic breakdowns, whereas the latter will most often turn out to be sufficient.

Perhaps the Europe of our grandfathers was a more forgiving, easy-going place (Out of character: "NOT! [:D]"), but for us, the rulers at the end of this revolutionary 18th century, we walk a tightrope in a context of great tension, and potentially great catastrophe.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

One thing, though perhaps not the only thing, that is "cut and dried" from the perspective of the Tzar, is that powers seeking to avoid these sorts of misunderstandings should, in future say ONLY what they mean, mean ONLY what they say, and do exactly as they say.

France is glad to see that Russia realizes the root of Russia's error in deceiving France by saying that Russia would sign the Warsaw Pact and failing to sign it as Russia said it would.

We hope such misunderstandings can be avoided in the future by Russia undertaking exactly the course of action the Czar lays out here.

Wasn't Spain out of town this we, and that is the delay for the turn?

ORIGINAL: montesaurus

Wasn't Spain out of town this we, and that is the delay for the turn?

Think he is in surgery today or something. Wasn't absent prior to this, so this game has just been taking forever for some other reason!

ORIGINAL: Mus

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

One thing, though perhaps not the only thing, that is "cut and dried" from the perspective of the Tzar, is that powers seeking to avoid these sorts of misunderstandings should, in future say ONLY what they mean, mean ONLY what they say, and do exactly as they say.

France is glad to see that Russia realizes the root of Russia's error in deceiving France by saying that Russia would sign the Warsaw Pact and failing to sign it as Russia said it would.

We hope such misunderstandings can be avoided in the future by Russia undertaking exactly the course of action the Czar lays out here.

The "error" which Russia _avoided_ making, was to act in a hopeful and dismissive nature and assume that all was normal with Poland, when Poland did NOT say only what they meant, did NOT mean only what they said, and did not DO exactly as they said.

Indeed, I also did not DO as I said I would. But to do so given Poland's about-face in actions would have been the height of stupidity on my part. Had Poland simply agreed to the Treaty, Russia would now be "Poland's Protector," just as Poland had asked.

If the French rulers view is that intelligent diplomacy on the part of other nations faced with potential duplicity constitutes error, or "warmongering," or "mad dog" behavior, or "lying" then certainly it is your prerogative to hold that standard to other nations while simultaneously exhibiting the hypocrisy of faiing to apply it to your vassal states.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Indeed, I also did not DO as I said I would. But to do so given Poland's about-face in actions would have been the height of stupidity on my part.

There was no about face. Poland had explained why it had proposed a different treaty and would have given over the lands agreed on in a phased manner once it's infantry construction in Courland had completed... as they told you.

At least you are making progress in admitting to your own deceptive behavior. It's a start.

Poland has already acknowledged in this forum that he did not ratify the treaty he agreed to in PMs to me. You may not like calling that an "about face" but that is what it constituted to me.
 
I would also like to take the opportunity to respond publicly to a recent private communication from Sultan Vaalen of Turkey who asks
 

Why has the Tsar of all the Russias Placed a huge army on our Northern frontier?

Turkey desires peace with all its neighbors, but will defend itself if necessary.

The Sultan  

 
Dear Sultan,
 
Russia also desires peace with all her neighbors-=-save Poland, with whom she presently is at war.
 
I'm not entirely sure what turn in the game you are looking at. Owing to the vacillating nature of Polish diplomatic pleas for Russian help, and French encouragement to arrive at a workable relation with Poland about exchange of Polish lands for Russian protection, Russian forces have been moving around quite a bit in the Polish-Turkish-Russian border area these past months . . .
 
On Turn 0 Russian troops were "trapped" in Poland (Zhytomyr and Cherkasy I believe).
 
On Turn 1 I inquired about this and learned that I had to violate neutrality to get this troops moved out. I moved them into Vinnitsa and one of those other neighboring provinces if memory serves.
 
On Turn 2 (based on incessant Polish requests for us to move our troops "as far West toward Cracow" as possible in preparation for Russia taking on the role of "Protector of Poland" and "declaring war on Prussia" as part of this role as protector) both Russian formations were moved BACK inside Poland (with the understanding that the Treaty would soon be signed between Poland and Russia to provide RoP, shared depot, and the aforementioned 3 provinces) into Zhytomyr province if memory serves.
 
Turn 3, the treaty which I had sent to Poland, which would have finalized the Polish-Russian "Protector" deal, and facilitated Russia moving west to "protect" Poland from mean-old Prussia as Poland had so repeatedly entreated in the preceding 50-some-odd PMs, which Poland and I had discussed in such great and agonizing detail between playing Turn 2 and Turn 3, was not accepted by Poland, and instead an _alternative_ treaty was presented to Russia by Poland
 
**here I hope that the other nations of Europe can begin to see the true outline of the deceptive parties in this matter**
 
As a consequence of this behavior on the part of Poland, which I have so "ingraciously" had the unmitigated audacity to refer to as an "about face," I moved both of my formations BACK _OUT_ of Poland (into either Vinnitsa or Kiev, I cannot recall for certain), and then Declared War on Poland, and moved one of my formations BACK _IN_ to Poland (Cherkasy).
 
Let me close this response to providing an absolutely clear promise to the Sultan: Recent movements by Russian military formations, and any ensuing movements in the near future, are in no way preparations for aggressive action against Turkey. We are at war with Poland, and have no desire or intent to provoke, cause, or otherwise promulgate, or initiate a war with either Turkey or France. We seek nothing but friendly peaceful relations with ALL European powers, except the sole power with whom we are at War: Poland. As we have said above, we are amenable to a peaceful, and hopefully bloodless conclusion to the present conflict with Poland, and are in no way desirous of an expansion of the present conflict or the inclusion of additional nations in the conflict. The path back to peace at this stage is quite simple. Turkey and France should stand down, and rest easy based on our Russian promise that we are not now planning, and have no plan for the immediate future, to engage in aggression (either military or diplomatic) against either of your two nations.
 
And one final point of note here: the deal between Russia and Poland was that Russia would "protect" Poland in exchange for the aforementioned territories, as well as the other sundry clauses of the treaty which Emperor Mus of France so graciously posted here in the international forum.
 
The role of Protector does NOT mean (and never DID mean) assisting Poland in taking additional territories from other nations (e.g., Prussia or Austria), and as the Polish master nation (France) has insisted, also must not mean a mututal defense arrangement between Poland and Russia. However, assuming Poland sticks to her part of the deal, evacuates Courland, Kovno, and Volhynia as requested, and then once the time has elapsed and surrenders peacefully to Russia, then Russia _WILL_ be bound to "protect" Poland. How exactly Poland intends to continue to obey both French rhetoric and Russian protection is beyond me, but it is Russia's sincere and EARNEST intent to stick to the word I gave in originally agreeing to the Treaty which Poland rejected, and which was the basis for my declaring war on Poland. _IF_ Poland sticks to her side of the deal, Russia will stick to hers, and _PROTECT_ Poland.
 
I hope that _ALL_ can see by my willingness to explicate this point quite clearly and explicitly that there is not a shred of duplicity lying under any Russian action to date. I was wronged by Polish duplicity, and repitiiously by French complicity with Polish duplicity, as well as Mussian presumptuousicity. Nonetheless, I will stick to the spirit of the original agreement: Poland gives me the land, I give Poland protection: meaning that, at Polands discretion (and perhaps with a note of approval from Polands French masters) I will be obliged to fight to defend Poland against any other aggressors, e.g., Prussia who is presently at war with Poland . . . how Poland and her French masters imagine that I might "protect" Poland WITHOUT entering into a state of war against Prussia, I cannot imagine
 
In actual fact: I DO NOT believe that when I finally receive and open Turn 4 of this incredibly diplomatically-high-maintenance PBEM that I _WILL_ see those three provinces evacuated as Poland has now recently promised me in PMs and has stated he was agreeable to all along here in the forums. Having now rejected the original Treaty which would have brough to fruition the protectorate-protector relationship which Poland cajoled me into, I simply cannot imagine that Poland will actually go through with the deal and allow herself to become a "more-or-less permanent Russian protectorate" as she stated she sought to be so many days ago in so many PMs to me. Based on recent Polish PMs it is my expectation that Poland will continue to be an uncooperative, shiftless, vacillating and untrustworthy pest of a nation, constantly threatening to plunge all of Europe into a state of massive bloodthirsty warfare and strife, and all the while calculating how she can gain a few more provinces here and a few more provinces there (to wit note Polands efforts to "Agree" in full the to the Treaty of Newcastle Brown Ale, followed immediately by his/her/its efforts to ask for "some German principalities"). *phew*
 
Now, having said all that: Turkey, don't worry about us. We have no interests in attacking or acquiring any of your territories, and we will NOT attack you. If you want a friend, we will be it. If you insist on going the way that France has gone, our future relations may not be so warm or cordial.
 
To France: you have dug yourself deeply into a hole with Russia, and that is where you will stay until such time as you apologize for your repititious and incessant attempts at character assasination.
 
To Prussia, Austria, Britain, and Spain: we invite you, at your leisure, to please carefully re-examine all the previous diplomatic communiques we have sent to you. All options we have discussed remain at this stage open, although obviously, _IF_ Poland does go through with her side of the deal, then Russia will be faced with an obligation to "protect" Poland and that may well constrain some of the options discussed in our previous communiques. For example, if in fact Poland defies our expectations and sticks to the original deal, and peacefully evacuates Courland, Kovno, and Volhynia, and then peacefully surrenders in four turns as they are supposed to do, then it will be an obligation of Russia for the duration of our treaty as protector to Poland to (at Polands discretion) defend Poland against aggression by either Prussia or Austria.
 
This is the nature of giving your word, and a point to which Consul Poniatowski might do well to pay heed. When you give your word to one party, you will often find yourself constrained with respect to a second or third party.
 
At present, the "ball is in Polands court." Russia gave her word to protect Poland in exchange for the treaty proposed, and which was rejected. As a demonstration of Russian veracity, and despite its obvious risk of entanglements and unintended consequences, Russia states here and now, unequivocally: IF when I open Turn 4, I see that Poland has taken the first steps to standing by her word and moved her forces OUT of Kovno, Courland and Volhynia, and then IF in four more turns hence, Poland peacefully surrenders, I _WILL_ stand by my word and protect Poland for the duration of our treaty of enforced peace, RoP and Shared Depots.

THIS POSTING ALL SPOKEN AS PONIATOWSKI:

YES POLAND'S MILITIA HAS BEEN EVACUATED. BUT---AS I HAVE SAID 100 TIMES, I AM WORKING TO GET MY NEWLY PRODUCED INFANTRY UNIT OUT OF COURLAND ASAP! WHICH MEANS THAT I HAVE SENT AN ARMY CONTAINER WITH A GOOD GENERAL INTO COURLAND SO THAT I CAN MOVE IT OUT MORE QUICKLY! I don't know how often I have to explain this army in Courland thing.

I am beginning to wonder (for the FIRST time) if it is worth trying to build a diplomatic relationship with a nation which has such high levels of distrust of my intentions. I am beginning to feel like I am dealing with my ex-wife, instead of a Tsar.

Poland agrees that this behavior was all very confusing. But international conflict and relations are. I really felt I would have put all of the nations who were my allies and friends into greater danger than they would have been otherwise (including Russia) and risked friendly relations with Britain IF I would have accepted a treaty which would have put Russia at war with Prussia. As Russia states, Poland had already worked VERY hard to work out the details of the Russo-Polish treaty in many, many PMs. Poland was exhausted with the many, many PMs required to work out the deal as well, and thought such tremendous efforts would impart a favorable opinion of our desire to work with Russia to the halls of power in Moscow. We were amazed when we saw a declaration of war posting.

It might have taken ANOTHER 2-3 emails to debate and explain the rejection of the "declaration of war on Prussia" bit, and to be honest with you, I was zonked--it was 5 in the morning, and I had surely spent 8 hours on the game that day. I sure as hell wasn't going to put MORE time into it and HOPED Russia would understand or have gained a positive feeling for Polish desire for cooperation that they wouldn't get upset over a lengthening of the negotiation process. It wasn't like I had said anywhere, this was not going to move forward.

I was also concerned that accepting the treaty would destroy me with the Austrian army on the border and not being sure what the heck was going to happen with the Russian army (or even if the Russian's weren't playing both sides of the fence THEMSELVES!). Again, we also needed time to get our infantry unit out of Courland.

I believe I explained the infantry unit in Courland thing several times, but the Tsar wanted everything "now". I couldn't agree to "now", but could agree to doing it in a few months. And then, Russia declared war on Poland. I was surprised that negotiations broke down so quickly--which of course, lead me to believe that RUSSIA was dealing disingenuously.

At the moment, due to the lack of conciliatory messages coming out of Moscow, we don't really even believe Russia will honor its end of the deal if Poland delivers all that was asked for. I feel like every attempt will be made to fabricate evidence of Polish non-compliance and there will be endless disagreement over what constitutes Polish "protection". I don't know if it has been misunderstanding, or mistrust--but communication with Russia is not easy. I feel very distrusted (or ripe for a backstabbing)--did from the beginning. And have for some time. I have had much stronger and favorable support and easier negotiations with other capitals of Europe. Why is this? This is the least working, "working" relationship Poland has.

Poland did not have cold feet about the eventual establishment of the Russo-Polish deal at all--not until Russia declared war on us! LOL. By expecting a certain kind of behavior instead of trusting, Russia may have induced the very emotional response they feared. LOL. Poniatowski is not used to working so hard to build a deal with someone and be so distrusted the entire time. Poland would rather go down in flames than allow anyone to slander us by saying our offer to accept a French-British Prussian peace deal was disingenuous, when all we did was open the door to ARBITRATION with that statement and indicated that we would accept the decision which was eventually decided on! I do believe that nations are allowed to present their case ONCE they are informed that arbitration will be offered? I feel like I am in a looney bin here. In fact, to have such statements made about us, after we worked so hard to build the Russian-Polish protection deal, we are beginning to wonder about any cooperation with Russia at all--FOR THE FIRST TIME. ESPECIALLY AFTER ALL WE HAVE DONE ON THIS PAGE OF THE THREAD IS DEFEND RUSSIA'S INTENTIONS AND WORK TO SALVAGE HER IMAGE IN EUROPE.

WHY SHOULD POLAND TRUST ANYONE WHO DOESN'T TRUST HER?

(It's why I play the game--because of all the shit I have to deal with! Why else would I do this to myself!)

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

Poland agrees that this behavior was all very confusing. But international conflict and relations are. I really felt I would have put all of the nations who were my allies and friends into greater danger than they would have been otherwise (including Russia) and risked friendly relations with Britain IF I would have accepted a treaty which would have put Russia at war with Prussia. As Russia states, Poland had already worked VERY hard to work out the details of the Russo-Polish treaty in many, many PMs. Poland was exhausted with the many, many PMs required to work out the deal as well, and thought such tremendous efforts would impart a favorable opinion of our desire to work with Russia to the halls of power in Moscow. We were amazed when we saw a declaration of war posting.

It might have taken ANOTHER 2-3 emails to debate and explain the rejection of the "declaration of war on Prussia" bit, and to be honest with you, I was zonked--it was 5 in the morning, and I had surely spent 8 hours on the game that day. I sure as hell wasn't going to put MORE time into it and HOPED Russia would understand or have gained a positive feeling for Polish desire for cooperation that they wouldn't get upset over a lengthening of the negotiation process. It wasn't like I had said anywhere, this was not going to move forward.

I was also concerned that accepting the treaty would destroy me with the Austrian army on the border and not being sure what the heck was going to happen with the Russian army (or even if the Russian's weren't playing both sides of the fence THEMSELVES!). Again, we also needed time to get our infantry unit out of Courland.

I believe I explained the infantry unit in Courland thing several times, but the Tsar wanted everything "now". I couldn't agree to "now", but could agree to doing it in a few months. And then, Russia declared war on Poland. I was surprised that negotiations broke down so quickly--which of course, lead me to believe that RUSSIA was dealing disingenuously.

This illustrates the foundation for the French belief that Russia has been acting through this entire episode in order to get in a war, any war. First with Prussia, failing that with Poland.

The international community should realize that the entire cause for negotiations between Poland and Russia in the first place was Russia threatening to attack Poland.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

**here I hope that the other nations of Europe can begin to see the true outline of the deceptive parties in this matter**

This is the most laughable statement yet.

The actual timeline goes as follows:

Turn 0. France receives a message from Russia saying the Czar sees France and Russia as natural allies. Russia promises an alliance with France if we allow them a free hand in Poland (to seize territory and terrorize the Polish people). Russia also threatens to ally themselves with the "enemies of France" (whoever that is) if I dont agree to this idea.

Turn 1. The Prussian-Polish crisis begins. I communicate to Poland France's desire to see a sovereign Poland remain in existence and a willingness to help Poland form alliances to help it survive. I inform the Czar his proposal is unacceptable and counterpropose a 4 way treaty between France/Turkey/Poland/Russia. I also communicate the threats I received from Russia, including towards Poland, to Poland and Turkey. I warn that Russia might not be trustworthy (these suspicious have now been confirmed by Russian treachery). POLAND RIGHTLY FEARS A MULTIFRONT ATTACK AT THIS POINT AND BEGINS NEGOTIATING WITH RUSSIA IN GOOD FAITH. 4 way talks are also started between France/Turkey/Poland/Russia at this point.

Turn 2. Negotiations between Poland/Russia/France/Turkey are ongoing. An effort to defuse the Prussian-Polish crisis is undertaken. Austria states that they will not intervene in said crisis, unless Prussia is attacked by a third party. I reciprocate and state I will not intervene on Poland's behalf unless they are attacked by Austria. Russia and Poland continue negotiating a transfer of land in exchange for Russian help in case Austria intervenes, but also to stave off attack by Russia (this is commonly known as extortion). It is requested that Russia move it's troops toward Krakow in order to help defend it in the unlikely event Austria attacks. France specifically states during these negotiations that a mutual defense clause should not be signed as it would result in a greater European war. Poland explains why a treaty containing that clause will not be signed and states he will counterpropose a nearly identical treaty but with a phased handover of territory because of infantry being produced in Kovno.

Turn 3. On receipt of the new files I see that Poland has won a stunning victory near Berlin. I then receive several frantic messages from Poland stating that Russia has gone incommunicado and posted threatening messages that he will declare war on Poland because "Poland broke it's word" despite the fact Russia was told before the treaty was received that it would not be signed and a similar treaty would be counterproposed instead.

Note at this point Russia is in fact breaking it's word to France Turkey and Poland because he had stated he was going to sign the Warsaw Pact and he had been told he would receive identical compensation in a phased manner.

Apparently unsatisfied with lies and warmongering, the Czar decided to add hypocrisy and paranoia to his resume.

At this point the compromise solution that had been laid out is negotiated between Britain and France and agreed to by the Poles and Prussians. The Poles of course had always indicated a willingness to negotiate. Prussia only accepted the compromise after it's army was crushed and Poland's was sitting on Prussia's capital.

So in fact what we have here is just as I said:

1. Russia wanted war with Prussia. This is the only possible outcome from the treaty it sent, which would have resulted in an immediate state of war between Russia and Prussia had it been signed.
2. Failing that, Russia wanted war with Poland. Since Poland had specifically told Russia that it would provide the same territory in a phased manner, the only thing Russia wasn't getting was WAR.
3. Russia broke off negotiatons being participated in in good faith by all other parties and broke it's word with France and Turkey.
4. The result of the treaty that wasn't signed and in fact Russia was told before it was received would not be signed would have likely plunged all of Europe into War.

Of course this chain events leads any reasonable observer to believe that Russia wants war, any war, and that is what France has stated.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

To France: you have dug yourself deeply into a hole with Russia, and that is where you will stay until such time as you apologize for your repititious and incessant attempts at character assasination.

France will never apologize for telling the truth. Furthermore, we knew even during negotiations, having witnessed the erratic and bipolar nature of the Czar's strategic and diplomatic policy, that Russian friendship would be of a fickle nature and of dubious value.