(RP for Wenceslao Quinito Vinzons)
I vote for Option 7, but merge Karelia and Estonia w/ Finland.
I vote for Option 7, but merge Karelia and Estonia w/ Finland.
Last edited:
-
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.
Speaking as the token estonian here, it seems the only solution we'd support is merger with the finns.
And yes, that would put Kingissepp and Leningrad there too - the Ingrian people are also in the same language group.
And yes, that would put Kingissepp and Leningrad there too - the Ingrian people are also in the same language group.
I totally hear you buddy, even though I'm actually not Estonian (I'm a Filipino-American and I'm proud of it!
)
@hoi2geek: Ireland is now a willing and happy member of the United Kingdom, so De Valera gets no seat. Whether it stays that way is up to Danielshannon, but personally I think the Irish should not get their own representative.
(goes into RP mode)
The government of Canada would like to put its support behind the 3rd option, with a Union of Scandinavia, made up of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark (and possibly Iceland), with a separate Finland to the east.
Also, Canada would be more than happy to incorporate Greenland into our territory. Greenland is geographically closer to Canada than the USA by far, and would also still give the US the security it needs without the hassle of the USA having to pay for and maintain bases and installations there. Canada would be more than willing to do so instead.
(exits RP mode)
(goes into RP mode)
The government of Canada would like to put its support behind the 3rd option, with a Union of Scandinavia, made up of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark (and possibly Iceland), with a separate Finland to the east.
Also, Canada would be more than happy to incorporate Greenland into our territory. Greenland is geographically closer to Canada than the USA by far, and would also still give the US the security it needs without the hassle of the USA having to pay for and maintain bases and installations there. Canada would be more than willing to do so instead.
(exits RP mode)
I must say I am strongly against the 4 nation solution. To be blunt such nations would only be pawns at worst or to small to enforce their own interests at best. Not to mention the difficulties they will have in reconstructing themselves.
Futhermore the traditions of antagonism between Sweden and Denmark/Norway makes merging them a bad idea. Not less then 50 years ago (ingame) Norway declared independence from Sweden having been conquered away from Denmark in war. Remerging these nations would be expressly against the wishes of the population that remains. A 2 state solution respects the history of the nations involved while creating states that can resist outsiders wishing to compel them economically or politically.
I am not against merging Estonia with Finland/Sweden. I had assumed however that the estonians would prefer a union with the other baltic states or being part of a federation of eastern european states.
Futhermore the traditions of antagonism between Sweden and Denmark/Norway makes merging them a bad idea. Not less then 50 years ago (ingame) Norway declared independence from Sweden having been conquered away from Denmark in war. Remerging these nations would be expressly against the wishes of the population that remains. A 2 state solution respects the history of the nations involved while creating states that can resist outsiders wishing to compel them economically or politically.
I am not against merging Estonia with Finland/Sweden. I had assumed however that the estonians would prefer a union with the other baltic states or being part of a federation of eastern european states.
Well, no it doesn't. It uses what is ancient history that is not seriously reflected by the culture of the various Scandinavian and Finnish people to set up two artificial states with little or no popular support, states that are both bound to fail. Nor is the difference in size and resources large enough from the four-state solution to truly decrease the risk of these states becoming pawns, so there's no benefit there either.
(IC.)
I find that President Truman seems to be forgetting what this war was about. It was for democracy and the rights of the individual against a tyrant. We should not forget this today, to make such decisions as to affect the lives of millions without even supporting the ballot is a shameful action that begets the lives lost to support it. Put it to the citizens of Scandinavia to choose their fate.
If we do not, I predict shadow to rise over our world. Not only will the spirit of the war itself be tainted but instability and violence will be our legacy in the north. If we force this upon unwilling citizens then may their children not cry we were as Stalin, enforcing our image and will upon all?
I say to you let the people of Scandinavia choose.
I find that President Truman seems to be forgetting what this war was about. It was for democracy and the rights of the individual against a tyrant. We should not forget this today, to make such decisions as to affect the lives of millions without even supporting the ballot is a shameful action that begets the lives lost to support it. Put it to the citizens of Scandinavia to choose their fate.
If we do not, I predict shadow to rise over our world. Not only will the spirit of the war itself be tainted but instability and violence will be our legacy in the north. If we force this upon unwilling citizens then may their children not cry we were as Stalin, enforcing our image and will upon all?
I say to you let the people of Scandinavia choose.
(as Wenceslao Quinito Vinzons)
Personally, I think the Irish should have a representative.
Also, an independent Lappland and a merger of Karelia, Ingria, and Estonia to Finland is a good idea.
Personally, I think the Irish should have a representative.
Also, an independent Lappland and a merger of Karelia, Ingria, and Estonia to Finland is a good idea.
My government cannot support a Scandinavian Union. History has shown that when given the choice, the Scandinavian peoples have by and large chosen to go their own ways. Therefore, we have chosen to throw our weight behind option one, with three provisos:
1. The status of Schleswig-Holstein. Lest we forget it was only thirty years ago that Germany threatened the security of the entire world. The United States has already given them more power than they deserve. Schleswig-Holstein voted to become part of Denmark with a majority of 75%. we believe we should honour that treaty.
2. Finland is the only country that did not gain its independence; it was conquered by a foreign power. While we are open to Finnish independence, we believe for the moment it should return to the control of Sweden with a future referendum on its status.
3. The status of Greenland and Iceland. We believe that Greenland should be transferred to the control of Canada, as outlined by Prime Minister Graydon. As for Iceland, it was strategically vital in the Great Crusade against the Soviet Union. The future is uncertain, and retaining control of the island may be necessary to preserve peace. However, we must keep in mind the Icelandic peoples. For that reason, we believe that for the moment Iceland should remain under US control, either as a Territory or a Commonwealth, and that in twenty years' time a referendum should be held to determine its future status. By that time it will be clear whether the US will need to retain control of it.
Sir Earle Page
Prime Minister
Commonwealth of Australia
(OOC: Too things. Firstly, the need for a "sea corridor" for Poland should be diminished by this point thanks to the possibility of air supply. Alternately, it could retain control of Gdynia with special rights to the railways and roads leading to it.
danielshannon, could we get a world map, please?)
1. The status of Schleswig-Holstein. Lest we forget it was only thirty years ago that Germany threatened the security of the entire world. The United States has already given them more power than they deserve. Schleswig-Holstein voted to become part of Denmark with a majority of 75%. we believe we should honour that treaty.
2. Finland is the only country that did not gain its independence; it was conquered by a foreign power. While we are open to Finnish independence, we believe for the moment it should return to the control of Sweden with a future referendum on its status.
3. The status of Greenland and Iceland. We believe that Greenland should be transferred to the control of Canada, as outlined by Prime Minister Graydon. As for Iceland, it was strategically vital in the Great Crusade against the Soviet Union. The future is uncertain, and retaining control of the island may be necessary to preserve peace. However, we must keep in mind the Icelandic peoples. For that reason, we believe that for the moment Iceland should remain under US control, either as a Territory or a Commonwealth, and that in twenty years' time a referendum should be held to determine its future status. By that time it will be clear whether the US will need to retain control of it.
Sir Earle Page
Prime Minister
Commonwealth of Australia
(OOC: Too things. Firstly, the need for a "sea corridor" for Poland should be diminished by this point thanks to the possibility of air supply. Alternately, it could retain control of Gdynia with special rights to the railways and roads leading to it.
danielshannon, could we get a world map, please?
)
Last edited:
(RP mode)
Germany supports a Plesbicite. The Great Crusade was preceded by a forceful Union of Nationstates, and however the Democratic Credentials of this Union might be, it can never be sure about the support of the populace. Personally we would like to see a fully United Scandinavia with Finnland as a part if possible, but only if that is a wish of the majority of Scandinavians, mainly because the pre-war states would economically not be viable and frankly rebuilding our own country is expensive enough as it is. The faster Scandinavia can stand on her own feet the better.
(/ RP mode)
Germany supports a Plesbicite. The Great Crusade was preceded by a forceful Union of Nationstates, and however the Democratic Credentials of this Union might be, it can never be sure about the support of the populace. Personally we would like to see a fully United Scandinavia with Finnland as a part if possible, but only if that is a wish of the majority of Scandinavians, mainly because the pre-war states would economically not be viable and frankly rebuilding our own country is expensive enough as it is. The faster Scandinavia can stand on her own feet the better.
(/ RP mode)
RP: To Sir Earle (Australia): It may have escaped your Notice, but it weren't German troops that burned down Sydney, Adelaide and Darwin. German troops died just as bravely as American Soldiers, and all that 'power that we do not deserve' was not given, it was earned with blood on the steppes and mountains of Russia.
We do however agree on the matter of Iceland, provided that there is an option for Iceland to join whatever form Denmark has at the time.
/RP
We do however agree on the matter of Iceland, provided that there is an option for Iceland to join whatever form Denmark has at the time.
/RP
Eams said:
I will remind you that we are not in the 21st century and therefore you cannot use modern feelings as your basis. Of course even if you were to you would have to note that Denmark and Norway are much closer to each other then they are to Sweden. At this point in history it's been decades since Norway told Sweden to take a hike (1905). They were in union with Denmark until conquered by Sweden in 1814. Futhermore Danish and Norwegian are mutually intelligible to each other so the language barrier is small.
Eams said:
I disagree. The population and resources at the command of the two states is much greater then if you have 4 states that can be played off the other. The Swedish/Finnland state has access to iron, coal, gold, nickle and various other mineral wealth that gives the state economic leverage. Farmland is more abundant then if the states were sliced apart. It's population is larger and given control of the Karelian isthmus defensible against land attack.
Norway-Denmark has control over the entrance of the Baltic sea and iron, oil and various other resources at it's command. Frankly if Denmark is left alone it will likely end up a virtual attachment to Germany, with no offense to the German representative or the German people meant. I am unsure as to why the US requires control over Iceland though as I assumed if the US is needed at all our allies would allow us to operate from their soil.
midge said:
You know actually... Yeah that's fair. It is their future and country and all that so yeah, let them pick. They might pick foolishly but... Well if we say you only have the freedom to choice what we think is wise, it's not much of a freedom then is it? I do think we should narrow it down to a top 3 for any vote however, although with the top 3 would be a None of the Above choice. Is that acceptable?
Field Marshall Rommel,
By no means do we intend to discredit the sacrifices made by your people in the Great Crusade, or any other nations'. We do, however, intend to see that the will of the people of Northern Schleswig-Holstein be honoured, and that it remain a part of Denmark. Your control over Bohemia and the restored 1914 borders in the east are a direct result of such plebiscites. To not honour their decision is hypocrisy of the highest degree.
We are glad to see you agree on the matter of Iceland.
Sir Earle Page
Prime Minister
Commonwealth of Australia
I simply just ask that we provide them with the four-state (Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland w/ Estonia); three state (Norway-Denmark, Sweden, Finland w/ Estonia) and a Scandinavian Confederation option (all states in a single union with the option to vote for the abolition of the monarchy if approved) [since the different states' dynasties would ultimately have issues with who gets the throne if ever the Confederation comes to be].
Given these, Greenland I feel is best served by becoming a Canadian Federal territory while Iceland gains a similar status to that of Puerto Rico in the US hierarchy; with the possibility for both states to eventually vote on self-rule or application into the Union. I hope that President Truman does not see it as interference in domestic affairs.
Given these, Greenland I feel is best served by becoming a Canadian Federal territory while Iceland gains a similar status to that of Puerto Rico in the US hierarchy; with the possibility for both states to eventually vote on self-rule or application into the Union. I hope that President Truman does not see it as interference in domestic affairs.
No Offence taken, Sir Earle. However at the moment it is ill advised to immediately transfer northern Schleswig (i.e. the majority Danish areas) mainly because many Danish residents are still arriving from the various locations they were displaced to and also because the cost of rebuilding would probably be too much for the Danish economy at the moment, as the area quite literally has been swept bare by the Soviets to double the width of the Kiel Canal including the new locks.
(IC)
Schleswig-Holstein has always been a troubled part of German history, it is regrettable that it seems to becoming one now.
I propose the idea of holding the country as a special zone of economic, commercial and foreign interest where no country may have military troops, a de-militarized zone. This zone would be administered by Denmark and Germany jointly and a parliament may be set up so the inhabitants of the area have direct control over their affairs. We hope this idea is acceptable to both parties.
Additionally, I fully back the idea of the plan to integrate Greenland into Canada's federal structure. We feel that as the Canadian government has much more experience with protectorates of the Eskimos and the northern people such a endeavor will undoubtedly be more successful than any other nationstate could make it.
(OOC.)I would suggest that the British army could take them over but I'm forsaking that in order that I may be given more favors father along the line.
Schleswig-Holstein has always been a troubled part of German history, it is regrettable that it seems to becoming one now.
I propose the idea of holding the country as a special zone of economic, commercial and foreign interest where no country may have military troops, a de-militarized zone. This zone would be administered by Denmark and Germany jointly and a parliament may be set up so the inhabitants of the area have direct control over their affairs. We hope this idea is acceptable to both parties.
Additionally, I fully back the idea of the plan to integrate Greenland into Canada's federal structure. We feel that as the Canadian government has much more experience with protectorates of the Eskimos and the northern people such a endeavor will undoubtedly be more successful than any other nationstate could make it.
(OOC.)I would suggest that the British army could take them over but I'm forsaking that in order that I may be given more favors father along the line.
IC as Harry Truman:
Any attempt to draw a comparison between the policy of the United States and the actions of Stalin is nothing but a damn bunch of bullshit!
I have said time and time again that the responsibility of the great states is to serve and not to dominate the world.
So much blood has been shed for the ideals which we cherish, and for which Franklin Delano Roosevelt lived and died… We certainly won’t betray the cause that so many people died for. Today, the entire world is looking to all of us for enlightened leadership to peace and progress. Such a leadership can be provided only by statesmen deeply devoted to the highest ideals. I know where I stand in that regard.
Let me stress this point: I wholeheartedly believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way. We won’t force any settlement on the liberated peoples of Europe without their consent.
Just to be clear, if the Scandinavians reject the solutions that we propose, then we will respect their wishes.
/Truman
We propose that the voting options should be as follows
1. Pre War boundaries
2. United Scandinavia
3. Norway-Denmark/Sweden-Finland
4. None of the above
The peoples of Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland would all get to vote on this. If a majority of a particular nationality votes against a merger then they would not be included. Additionally, Estonians will have an opportunity to decide if their future at a later date.
Furthermore, we will have no objections to Norwegian entry into the British commonwealth, provided that the Norwegians voted against unification with their neighbors and their leaders expressed a desire to join the commonwealth.
Arrangements will be made with Danish (or Scandinavian) authorities regarding Greenland’s future. We are of the opinion that Canada should take over the administration of the territory.
Is this acceptable?
Once the status of Denmark is resolved we will be able to tackle the issue of Schleswig-Holstein. The British proposal for joint administration of the territory works for the United States.
OOC: I’ll roll for each Scandinavian country’s votes. We’ll be using a d6 for this.
1 or 2 = support for Pre War boundaries
3 or 4 = support for the Magi plan
5 or 6 = support for some sort of Scandinavian federation
Sound good?
Map of world coming soon...
IC: Germany supports the plebiscite in Scandinavia, as for Northern Schleswig, I will leave that to the people.
OOC: Daniel, would you mind rolling a dice over that too? Options are: Immediate Union with Denmark, union with Denmark/Scandinavia/Whatever in, say, five years or remaining with Germany.
OOC: Daniel, would you mind rolling a dice over that too? Options are: Immediate Union with Denmark, union with Denmark/Scandinavia/Whatever in, say, five years or remaining with Germany.