| Welcome to Blut Und Eisen. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The London Conference 1857; Africa Partitioned | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 31 2014, 01:48 PM (1,471 Views) | |
| Robieman | Aug 31 2014, 01:48 PM Post #1 |
|
Who Bitch Dis
![]()
|
[align=center]Africa Partitioned, London 1857[/align] England proposes an end to the blatant rushing of colonial states in order to secure more colonial territory. After the failed invasion of claimed English land by the Austrian crown it is clear we must instead politically divide this land. Thus England with the help of a few allies has divied up the territory in a fair and reasonable matter proportional to each nations suspected colonial power and whether or not they will become a colonial power at all in Africa. All those invited from above have colonies or have colonized and have earned their share. England Strongly feels this is as fair as the Partition can get, should a nation wish for more but also wish to sign onto this agreement they must go to the nation they wish to take from not to the treaty as a whole. [spoiler=Englands proposed partition][align=center] [/align][/spoiler][spoiler=The new partition after NL, USA and Spain left][align=center] [/align][/spoiler]As all can tell there are serious discrepancies between certain nations future power in Africa. This has come from the overall strength nations have brought to the bargaining table as many have virtually no influence over certain regions while others have a complete monopoly. Article A Nations who sign this pact not only guarantee their own land in Africa but also guarantee all other signers. Should an outside nation try to steal land from a pact signer or should an outside nation hold land from a pact signer all pact signers must join the affected nation in war unless explicitly stopped by a treaty I.E. Brazil colonizes North Cameroon so NGF declares war on them for their land regarding Cameroon. Thus all treaty signers join the Germans in the war EXCEPT for USA who has an NAP with Brazil. Article A also includes that if a crisis breaks out over a territory, all signers must join the treaty signers side. Article B Land held from other pact signers is to be immediately transferred when taken from the correct nations holdings no matter the situation. Article C Should a nation included within the treaty not agree to the treaty it will be divided up correctly for other possible signers, in rare cases it will instead be added to an already included nations holdings. If a major signer such as France or Austria decide not to sign the pact England withholds the right to nullify the entirety of the pact in order to create a more balance pact excluding the stubborn nation. Article D Seeing as war is inevitable this treaty does not constitute as a NAP between all signers but instead does mean that should one sign they may never go to war over any African territory again with another signer. Wars where one is not the war leader but a war goal for an African territory has been added means they must white peace immediately Article E All signers understand that this is a perfectly legitimate treaty that should one break any of the previous articles they will be breaking the pact as a whole . Signing the pact not only means one understands exactly what they will gain from signing it but also everything they will lose from breaking it. Signing this treaty means signing it for two sessions Should any nation break the pact England withholds the right to divide up the entirety of their African holdings at England's discretion and ratified by at least half of all other treaty signers. A nation who breaks the pact also will incur the following penalties. 1,000,000 to all treaty signers (who have not broken the pact) If a nation does not have this money they will instead pay the price in ports, 500,000 per port 20 infamy 200 prestige the inability to colonize any more of Africa ever again. [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [] [x] [x]
|
![]() |
|
| Otto of England | Aug 31 2014, 04:33 PM Post #2 |
|
The Free State of Kiev
![]()
|
Signed by Canada [X] Canada completely supports Great Britains Proposition. - Queen Victoria |
![]() |
|
| downwiththestars | Aug 31 2014, 07:14 PM Post #3 |
![]()
|
[x] The Ottoman Empire reluctantly agrees. Our hand was forced to sign by the constant interference in our African holdings by other powers, but we hope this will settle the matter and leave every party satisfied. |
![]() |
|
| Warlord_Murphy | Aug 31 2014, 08:07 PM Post #4 |
![]()
|
France looks forward to this final resolution of the African question that has arisen in the last decade or so. |
![]() |
|
| Fussiler1 | Aug 31 2014, 10:25 PM Post #5 |
![]()
|
Mexico wishes to join the Conference, based on her Somalian and Sokotan colonies and claims Somalia and Bornu. Furthermore, they protest the current divison because that would mean giving away American and Mexican colonies, which is completely intolerable. This is a clear attempt to set the Netherlands up against Mexico and the United States by promising them land which was already taken. |
![]() |
|
| Robieman | Sep 1 2014, 12:04 AM Post #6 |
|
Who Bitch Dis
![]()
|
England understands the Mexican embassies dispute and we apologize on behalf of our map makers who seem to have forgotten about their Somalian land conquest. We shall talk to the Persians about transferring over a part of their colony in Mexico's name. However, over the Sokotan dispute all land taken from them was without due justification and we see the territories partition as a blatant disregard for global politics. The Americans have earned none of it and we strongly believe it is to be transferred into Dutch hands. In the meantime England will officially invite Mexico to the conference in good faith for a diplomatic resolution to this issue. Should Mexico wish to discuss anything else we recommend more direct communication lines. |
![]() |
|
| Markoni1100 | Sep 1 2014, 03:11 AM Post #7 |
![]()
|
Austria signs this but in a promise that our land which claimed by us doesnt given away to Russia,Mexico,Persia. Also Austria owns the northern swahili coast which is claimed here by persia.
|
![]() |
|
| Robieman | Sep 1 2014, 03:44 AM Post #8 |
|
Who Bitch Dis
![]()
|
What you sign is what you get, all the land currently claimed is irrelevant unless it is already given within the treaty map or if you can convince a fellow signer to give up such land. England is glad to see the Austrian crown came so willing to the conference. |
![]() |
|
| Markoni1100 | Sep 1 2014, 03:50 AM Post #9 |
![]()
|
That is fine then, Austria just didnt want that we lose land that we signed here. |
![]() |
|
| Warlord_Murphy | Sep 1 2014, 03:53 AM Post #10 |
![]()
|
You may have misunderstood Austria, any land you have now that is marked for someone else, you have to give over, otherwise you have to pay the price of violating the agreement. |
![]() |
|
| TheDerpyBeagle | Sep 1 2014, 07:08 AM Post #11 |
![]() ![]()
|
The Persians note that the British have claimed land that has been valiantly conquered by the Persian Empire years before. We would like to see a possible solution to this problem before signing the treaty. |
![]() |
|
| Markoni1100 | Sep 1 2014, 09:43 AM Post #12 |
![]()
|
No it says that what you colonize not what you conquer. Colonize in period between 1870-1875. The white land on the map as you can see. |
![]() |
|
| Kristian | Sep 1 2014, 01:05 PM Post #13 |
![]()
|
The NGF is full support of this!
|
![]() |
|
| Fussiler1 | Sep 1 2014, 01:09 PM Post #14 |
![]()
|
The Sokotan land was taken with the justification of any good Christian, to civilize the misguided natives and teach them Christianity. Claiming that was without due justification is false and if you call this a blatant disregard for global politics, what would you call wiping our colonies off the map and threatening with war if we do not comply to hand land over we fought for? |
![]() |
|
| Robieman | Sep 1 2014, 01:32 PM Post #15 |
|
Who Bitch Dis
![]()
|
As France has pointed out along with Austria and Persia, land within treaty is often controlled by nations before the treaty was signed despite being designated for a different nation. This is a part of the tradeoff for gaining so much of Africa. If a strong nation controls a lot of African holdings this is represented by how much larger their share of Africa is, but they do not (covered by article B ) get to keep such land. I.E England will be transferring a massive deal of land over to the French because of the treaty despite having owned this land before the treaty was signed. |
![]() |
|
| TheDerpyBeagle | Sep 1 2014, 01:36 PM Post #16 |
![]() ![]()
|
Very well, Persia signs the treaty. |
![]() |
|
| Robieman | Sep 1 2014, 01:37 PM Post #17 |
|
Who Bitch Dis
![]()
|
As the English president has noted we made a mistake dealing with the Mexican Somalian holdings which was a real disregard for African geopolitics. However the point still stands that the Sokotian region was not for any American to take, in the name of Christianity or not. |
![]() |
|
| Markoni1100 | Sep 1 2014, 02:38 PM Post #18 |
![]()
|
Austria is fine with that, it doesnt matter about those little 2 provinces. |
![]() |
|
| downwiththestars | Sep 2 2014, 01:46 AM Post #19 |
![]()
|
There are several errors in the map, such as my agreements with France, Russia and Persia regarding our borders, I will not be ceding Tripoli to France, or Ethiopia to Russia, and will be taking at least one state of what is on the map Persia's area. |
![]() |
|
| Warlord_Murphy | Sep 2 2014, 04:19 AM Post #20 |
![]()
|
![]() This agreement, which you've already signed, supersedes all past agreements, your continued control of the entirety of Tripoli is to be agreed to in a future treaty between ourselves, as will any other modifications to the current plan. The text of the treaty is quite clear on all of this. |
![]() |
|
| downwiththestars | Sep 2 2014, 04:27 AM Post #21 |
![]()
|
Obviously,but I needed to state it for the record. |
![]() |
|
| Warlord_Murphy | Sep 2 2014, 05:06 AM Post #22 |
![]()
|
Understandable, but its erroneous to refer to them as errors. The text of the treaty does acknowledge that there will be differences between what's on the partition plan and what's actually applied in practice. It's a matter between the two states involved, rather than having to get the 50% agreement on every little border change called for in the treaty. A revision of the entire map isn't called for unless a nation refuses to sign. |
![]() |
|
| Linny | Sep 2 2014, 07:15 AM Post #23 |
![]()
|
Russia signs this. |
![]() |
|
| Kristian | Sep 2 2014, 12:28 PM Post #24 |
![]()
|
The NGF revokes its signatur
|
![]() |
|
| Markoni1100 | Sep 2 2014, 01:16 PM Post #25 |
![]()
|
Austria pulls out aswell. |
![]() |
|
| Robieman | Sep 2 2014, 01:25 PM Post #26 |
|
Who Bitch Dis
![]()
|
article E forbids this, you both having signed it means you are both contractually obliged to go through with it for two sessions |
![]() |
|
| Linny | Sep 2 2014, 01:41 PM Post #27 |
![]()
|
Players cannot revoke their signatures after signing unless they want to incur penalties. |
![]() |
|
| StylishG33k | Sep 2 2014, 07:59 PM Post #28 |
![]()
|
This US government vehemently opposes the proposal lined out and is insulted the United Kingdom would suggest the transfer of American colonies to Canadian hands. The President would also like to make clear the hypocrisy in the statements of the Queen, as her majesty has waged war in order to claim lands in the Sokoto region, in addition to the German government, yet tries to claim the American people are somehow out of line. We are sad to see so many other nations fall to this English trickery, however the American people will not take part in this proposal and will use the full extent of our power to defend American land. ![]() OOC: How is this Article A Nations who sign this pact not only guarantee their own land in Africa but also guarantee all other signers. Should an outside nation try to steal land from a pact signer or should an outside nation hold land from a pact signer all pact signers must join the affected nation in war unless explicitly stopped by a treaty I.E. Brazil colonizes North Cameroon so NGF declares war on them for their land regarding Cameroon. Thus all treaty signers join the Germans in the war EXCEPT for USA who has an NAP with Brazil. legal? In this case a country could end up at war with multiple class As and Bs. I don't see how this is possibly in line with the rules? |
![]() |
|
| Warlord_Murphy | Sep 2 2014, 08:15 PM Post #29 |
![]()
|
(OOC: The rules of war are still maintained, its just that every signing country is considered to have issued guarantees to the others with regard to the territorial integrity of the African territories.) In that case France claims Liberia as French territory, I also recommend offering the Area originally marked for the Netherlands to Mexico. |
![]() |
|
| TheDerpyBeagle | Sep 2 2014, 08:16 PM Post #30 |
![]() ![]()
|
( Well I think it would be obviously worked into the rules, Class A/B rules would still apply, I guess the person would just choose who he wants to join the war with him ) |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Age of Diplomacy 4 · Next Topic » |



[/align][/spoiler]
[/align][/spoiler]





5:56 PM Jul 10