New Imperialism - AH RP v 1.2 [OOC, Signup]

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

Do look at Italy and Russia in 1900. You are committing masses of forces to keeping stability in Assyria and your new African territory, whereas my military is concentrated in the west. Your navy is bottlenecks in in the Mediterranean, whereas I have Baltic, Black Sea and Pacific ports, plus it just so happens that most of your neighbours hate you, and many of them happen to be allied with Eurasia.

Like I said, feel free to try, I won't hold back.

Assyria is relatively stable, currently the Arab Nationalists have resulted to peaceful means, under the leadership of a Secular mind.
My African territories are autonomous like all non states.
My Navy could destroy you fleet five times over,
And Britain may ally with me soon, MIsh honorably refuses to dogpile and Hannover is not very threatening

Hmm, again why did you include me in that conversation?

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

Do look at Italy and Russia in 1900. You are committing masses of forces to keeping stability in Assyria and your new African territory, whereas my military is concentrated in the west. Your navy is bottlenecks in in the Mediterranean, whereas I have Baltic, Black Sea and Pacific ports, plus it just so happens that most of your neighbours hate you, and many of them happen to be allied with Eurasia.

Like I said, feel free to try, I won't hold back.

Assyria is relatively stable, currently the Arab Nationalists have resulted to peaceful means, under the leadership of a Secular mind.
My African territories are autonomous like all non states.
My Navy could destroy you fleet five times over,
And Britain may ally with me soon, MIsh honorably refuses to dogpile and Hannover is not very threatening

That is not true. People are inflating Italy's power. In my opinion, Italy is in a very tough spot.

[Kryskov]

In which they sustained extremely high losses, a humiliating retreat, and finished the war with almost no actual gains.

Good job, Italy.

You ignore the Battle of Vittorio Veneta, where we and our allies put the Austro Hungarian army into full retreat and disarray, forcing them into an armistice

Largely, however, the whole endeavor was a failure for Italy, and numerous battles and shortcoming in Italy outweigh the good.

Also, Italy =/= 1914 Germany. And, if Mish refuses to dogpile, he can quite easily jump in if Britain joins. I doubt this combined Mughal-Eurasia coalition (with China entering as a largely non-combatant role, may send small expeditionary forces to supplement Coalition forces) could fail, and I am fairly certain that just the Mughals could conduct the war themselves.

[The imperial canadian dutchy]

You ignore the Battle of Vittorio Veneta, where we and our allies put the Austro Hungarian army into full retreat and disarray, forcing them into an armistice

Largely, however, the whole endeavor was a failure for Italy, and numerous battles and shortcoming in Italy outweigh the good.

Also, Italy =/= 1914 Germany. And, if Mish refuses to dogpile, he can quite easily jump in if Britain joins. I doubt this combined Mughal-Eurasia coalition (with China entering as a largely non-combatant role, may send small expeditionary forces to supplement Coalition forces) could fail, and I am fairly certain that just the Mughals could conduct the war themselves.

And in the end of the war what country collapsed and What country gained territory?

[The imperial canadian dutchy]

Assyria is relatively stable, currently the Arab Nationalists have resulted to peaceful means, under the leadership of a Secular mind.
My African territories are autonomous like all non states.
My Navy could destroy you fleet five times over,
And Britain may ally with me soon, MIsh honorably refuses to dogpile and Hannover is not very threatening

Hmm, again why did you include me in that conversation?

Because you are Rping Danubia until the other guy gets back?

[Kryskov]

And in the end of the war what country collapsed and What country gained territory?

The levels of failure do not matter; Italy still failed in its wargoals and gained very little at the expense of so much. It failed, no matter how you look at it.

[Rephesus]

Italy sat back and let the two sides fight for most of the war, then when there was a clear winner they made a secret deal with Britain and France, betraying their allies, and then they performed terribly for a nation of their calibre, and in the Peace Talks they were largely ignored by the allies, and gained almost nothing while sustaining extremely high casualties.

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

You ignore the Battle of Vittorio Veneta, where we and our allies put the Austro Hungarian army into full retreat and disarray, forcing them into an armistice

Largely, however, the whole endeavor was a failure for Italy, and numerous battles and shortcoming in Italy outweigh the good.

Also, Italy =/= 1914 Germany. And, if Mish refuses to dogpile, he can quite easily jump in if Britain joins. I doubt this combined Mughal-Eurasia coalition (with China entering as a largely non-combatant role, may send small expeditionary forces to supplement Coalition forces) could fail, and I am fairly certain that just the Mughals could conduct the war themselves.

Very true. We tend to forget that, although it feels like a long time, only barely 5 years have passed by since Italy got those African colonies. Those communities aren't going to be like, "Well, we are now Italians. Good thing they gave us autonomy. No need to fight..." Things are not like that. The amount and degree of repression that Italy needs to apply (which will not only mean a financial and military cost, but also a political cost to the politicians) will be enormous and for a long time.

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

Largely, however, the whole endeavor was a failure for Italy, and numerous battles and shortcoming in Italy outweigh the good.

Also, Italy =/= 1914 Germany. And, if Mish refuses to dogpile, he can quite easily jump in if Britain joins. I doubt this combined Mughal-Eurasia coalition (with China entering as a largely non-combatant role, may send small expeditionary forces to supplement Coalition forces) could fail, and I am fairly certain that just the Mughals could conduct the war themselves.

And in the end of the war what country collapsed and What country gained territory?

That argument is invalid. Italy switched sides during the war. What history tells us from both wars is: Italy either switches sides or quits mid way through.

[The Kingdom of Glitter]

Eurasia is also an unstable mass of people that could easily fall apart should it enter a war.

There was a reason why Buj was so conservative when it came to military action with Eurasia. Should it go to war with anything really it stands the chance it could collapse.

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

Hmm, again why did you include me in that conversation?

Because you are Rping Danubia until the other guy gets back?

Oh true. Well, you need to be more specific because what I am getting is that you are mentioning both Colombia and Danubia. Just say Danubia

[The Kingdom of Glitter]

That argument is invalid. Italy switched sides during the war. What history tells us from both wars is: Italy either switches sides or quits mid way through.

Imma stop you right there.

Italy collapsed into a "civil war" half way into WWII or whatever because the King tried to coup Mussolini, something he should have done earlier (ICD will disagree with that part of the statement but shh I know).

Italy "switched sides" in WWI for a rather intelligent reason, whether or not it worked for them is another story. Italy and Austria-Hungary historically did not like one another and historically Italy liked France more than Austria-Hungary so really if Italy is presented with the chance to regain some of its lost lands and possibly more or face defeat from the French and the British what do you think Italy is going to choose?

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

That argument is invalid. Italy switched sides during the war. What history tells us from both wars is: Italy either switches sides or quits mid way through.

Imma stop you right there.

Italy collapsed into a "civil war" half way into WWII or whatever because the King tried to coup Mussolini, something he should have done earlier (ICD will disagree with that part of the statement but shh I know).

Italy "switched sides" in WWI for a rather intelligent reason, whether or not it worked for them is another story. Italy and Austria-Hungary historically did not like one another and historically Italy liked France more than Austria-Hungary so really if Italy is
presented with the chance to regain some of its lost lands and possibly more or face defeat from the French and the British what do you think Italy is going to choose?

Exactly. In other words, the argument that goes "Who lost and who won" is purely invalid. Both countries went through factors that compell us to study the reason why one won and one lost in the war, further.

[The Kingdom of Glitter]

Exactly. In other words, the argument that goes "Who lost and who won" is purely invalid. Both countries went through factors that compell us to study the reason why one won and one lost in the war, further.

And while that is true, if you look at it over all, Italy gained land and Russia lost a lot of land in the Treaty. So really like if we had to decide who "won" more than the other, Italy did even though they didn't get what they wanted. I mean Russia was on the winning side, when they were in the war, but had to make rather large concessions. Italy just didn't get all the land they wanted.

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

Exactly. In other words, the argument that goes "Who lost and who won" is purely invalid. Both countries went through factors that compell us to study the reason why one won and one lost in the war, further.

And while that is true, if you look at it over all, Italy gained land and Russia lost a lot of land in the Treaty. So really like if we had to decide who "won" more than the other, Italy did even though they didn't get what they wanted. I mean Russia was on the winning side, when they were in the war, but had to make rather large concessions. Italy just didn't get all the land they wanted.

And I agree with that. However, ICD's argument that Italy would win over Russia in a war between the two, only by using the results of WWI (that as we have already agreed, are by no means 100% accurate if we do not consider the factors that affected both countries) is invalid.

[The Kingdom of Glitter]

And I agree with that. However, ICD's argument that Italy would win over Russia in a war between the two, only by using the results of WWI (that as we have already agreed, are by no means 100% accurate if we do not consider the factors that affected both countries) is invalid.

Going off of a world war, well you'd need Italy to have a lot of allies with it, which seems unlikely due to the FDA.

Our Italy vs Our Eurasia only, I'd say Italy could make some advances, but I doubt they could truly win. It is very hard to beat Russia due to its size alone, and the population was always a bit crazy and would burn all their shit to prevent invading armies from using it. Italy could secure the coastal areas in the Black Sea, and potentially maybe the Baltic Sea, but I doubt they could do much more. They wouldn't make it to Moscow, in my opinion. Without help.

Now a war Italy can win? Well, as Our Brazil pointed out if the Triple Alliance thing they have formed (which likely has the CSA due to its status of liking and being allied to Italy and also being authoritarian, I think at least) they could easily curb-stomp Iberia together. It just depends on if the Dutch are going to sit there and watch or intervene and try and drag the FDA into it. Which sounds scary, but of the FDA nations you might get the Dutch and French to contribute large forces, the NGC might do some, Danubia might to regain land in the Balkans but also risk civil unrest if they annex more minorities, and NESA might come in only if the CSA does but they are also both NPCs so. Brazil, Britain, and Italy could easily win that war. And I honestly hope it happens I need entertainment.

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

And I agree with that. However, ICD's argument that Italy would win over Russia in a war between the two, only by using the results of WWI (that as we have already agreed, are by no means 100% accurate if we do not consider the factors that affected both countries) is invalid.

Going off of a world war, well you'd need Italy to have a lot of allies with it, which seems unlikely due to the FDA.

Our Italy vs Our Eurasia only, I'd say Italy could make some advances, but I doubt they could truly win. It is very hard to beat Russia due to its size alone, and the population was always a bit crazy and would burn all their shit to prevent invading armies from using it. Italy could secure the coastal areas in the Black Sea, and potentially maybe the Baltic Sea, but I doubt they could do much more. They wouldn't make it to Moscow, in my opinion. Without help.

Now a war Italy can win? Well, as Our Brazil pointed out if the Triple Alliance thing they have formed (which likely has the CSA due to its status of liking and being allied to Italy and also being authoritarian, I think at least) they could easily curb-stomp Iberia together. It just depends on if the Dutch are going to sit there and watch or intervene and try and drag the FDA into it. Which sounds scary, but of the FDA nations you might get the Dutch and French to contribute large forces, the NGC might do some, Danubia might to regain land in the Balkans but also risk civil unrest if they annex more minorities, and NESA might come in only if the CSA does but they are also both NPCs so. Brazil, Britain, and Italy could easily win that war. And I honestly hope it happens I need entertainment.

I won't comment on the war regarding the Triple Alliance due to the geopolitical implications in the region.

Regarding the topic under discussion. I would say that Russia would win (as you mentioned); Italy would make advances but not of a very tactical significance.

By analyzing both Eurasia and Italy, it is evident that both would have internal tensions. Let us take a look at both:

-Eurasia: Eurasia could suffer significant and threatening internal conflicts because of its current stability. However, unlike in RL, Eurasia (Russia) wouldn't lose the war because even though its government may suffer some political costs, the Russia we know is more unified than the Italy we know. Moreover, Russia has made great advances in regards to trade, giving its government financial stability that could be used to maintain the country from an internal collapse.

-Italy: The Italian peninsula, if a war sparks, would be unified because of its nation (political science term). A war would mean some unity in the peninsula if the government knows how to profit from it. But taking a look at the Italy overall (colonies, etc.) would be extremely unstable. This war could mean the collapse of the Italian Empire as we know it. The African territories would see it as a war that they were dragged into by their slavers (because, a simple title of autonomy won't make them stop seeing Italy as their slavers) and could be encouraged further to rebel and defeat their masters - war that Italy is rather at a disadvantage. Assyria would also see its opportunity to seek independence; what time is better than when your masters are busy fighting this difficult war? ICD may say that they were "Italianized" but that won't make Assyria an eternal loyal servant. Distance, although not as severe as in other cases, will make Assyria see the situation as "Them and Us" (as seperatr entities), not as "We" or "Us" (as the Italian government, my ignorant logic concludes, would like to see it). A war would mean higher taxes, more stress on the economy, and a toll on psychology (family members dead, neighbor is disabled, my friend across the street losing her husband, etc). The expectations after such a war would make the people see (especially the colonials) that the war was for nothing and that things look rather pessimistic.

[The imperial canadian dutchy]

Largely, however, the whole endeavor was a failure for Italy, and numerous battles and shortcoming in Italy outweigh the good.

Also, Italy =/= 1914 Germany. And, if Mish refuses to dogpile, he can quite easily jump in if Britain joins. I doubt this combined Mughal-Eurasia coalition (with China entering as a largely non-combatant role, may send small expeditionary forces to supplement Coalition forces) could fail, and I am fairly certain that just the Mughals could conduct the war themselves.

Very true. We tend to forget that, although it feels like a long time, only barely 5 years have passed by since Italy got those African colonies. Those communities aren't going to be like, "Well, we are now Italians. Good thing they gave us autonomy. No need to fight..." Things are not like that. The amount and degree of repression that Italy needs to apply (which will not only mean a financial and military cost, but also a political cost to the politicians) will be enormous and for a long time.

No as it is pretty lassiez faire, African Rulers, African Government

[The imperial canadian dutchy]

Italy sat back and let the two sides fight for most of the war, then when there was a clear winner they made a secret deal with Britain and France, betraying their allies, and then they performed terribly for a nation of their calibre, and in the Peace Talks they were largely ignored by the allies, and gained almost nothing while sustaining extremely high casualties.

We did pretty damn well for a country with little to no Martial Tradition, the last Great Italian army was the Roman one.
There was NOT a fucking clear winner by the time Italy joined, and Britain proposed a deal to Italy not otherwise

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

Very true. We tend to forget that, although it feels like a long time, only barely 5 years have passed by since Italy got those African colonies. Those communities aren't going to be like, "Well, we are now Italians. Good thing they gave us autonomy. No need to fight..." Things are not like that. The amount and degree of repression that Italy needs to apply (which will not only mean a financial and military cost, but also a political cost to the politicians) will be enormous and for a long time.

No as it is pretty lassiez faire, African Rulers, African Government

As I said in my other post, that won't buy it for them. Identity is a powerful thing. Rome our capital or this city we live in, that is in our territory as our capital? There is a difference. Rome, the seat of government or our own capital as our seat of government? These questions, although not being asked consciously, are running like wild horses.

You mention capitalism. But let us go further. As we have seen in RL, as history tell us, capitalism for the masters not the "servants". Let me explain, Italian investors are far more powerful economically (self evident) and politically - Rome will listen to Italians, not to a tribe or community leader. As much autonomy as you want to give them one thing is clear: There will be a point in which Rome will be the supreme seat of government; if not, then those territories would not be considered part of the Italian Empire. Capitalism will ultimately benefit Italian investors because they have both, economic and political power. This will ultimately create tensions among the locals in the African territories, or if we want to adapt some of Nietzsche's ideas, the follower would have envy of the trendsetter. Or as some Latin American thinkers would say, the Europeans would have ultimate control over the people.

[The Kingdom of Glitter]

As we have seen in RL, as history tell us, capitalism for the masters not the "servants".

Except the vast majority of the "masters" rose from poverty and being "servants" and became big, massive, robber barons. There are a few who didn't, but most did. At least in America anyways.

[The imperial canadian dutchy]

No as it is pretty lassiez faire, African Rulers, African Government

As I said in my other post, that won't buy it for them. Identity is a powerful thing. Rome our capital or this city we live in, that is in our territory as our capital? There is a difference. Rome, the seat of government or our own capital as our seat of government? These questions, although not being asked consciously, are running like wild horses.

You mention capitalism. But let us go further. As we have seen in RL, as history tell us, capitalism for the masters not the "servants". Let me explain, Italian investors are far more powerful economically (self evident) and politically - Rome will listen to Italians, not to a tribe or community leader. As much autonomy as you want to give them one thing is clear: There will be a point in which Rome will be the supreme seat of government; if not, then those territories would not be considered part of the Italian Empire. Capitalism will ultimately benefit Italian investors because they have both, economic and political power. This will ultimately create tensions among the locals in the African territories, or if we want to adapt some of Nietzsche's ideas, the follower would have envy of the trendsetter. Or as some Latin American thinkers would say, the Europeans would have ultimate control over the people.

Oh sorry i meant by lassiez faire, leave them alone, as far as they know the capital is in what ever colony their in's capital, the only thing we do is modernized and covertly ship italians to live peacefully with the natives

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

As we have seen in RL, as history tell us, capitalism for the masters not the "servants".

Except the vast majority of the "masters" rose from poverty and being "servants" and became big, massive, robber barons. There are a few who didn't, but most did. At least in America anyways.

That was actually an allusion to something that a very French thinker said. Masters being the colonizers, servants being the colonials.

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

As I said in my other post, that won't buy it for them. Identity is a powerful thing. Rome our capital or this city we live in, that is in our territory as our capital? There is a difference. Rome, the seat of government or our own capital as our seat of government? These questions, although not being asked consciously, are running like wild horses.

You mention capitalism. But let us go further. As we have seen in RL, as history tell us, capitalism for the masters not the "servants". Let me explain, Italian investors are far more powerful economically (self evident) and politically - Rome will listen to Italians, not to a tribe or community leader. As much autonomy as you want to give them one thing is clear: There will be a point in which Rome will be the supreme seat of government; if not, then those territories would not be considered part of the Italian Empire. Capitalism will ultimately benefit Italian investors because they have both, economic and political power. This will ultimately create tensions among the locals in the African territories, or if we want to adapt some of Nietzsche's ideas, the follower would have envy of the trendsetter. Or as some Latin American thinkers would say, the Europeans would have ultimate control over the people.

Oh sorry i meant by lassiez faire, leave them alone, as far as they know the capital is in what ever colony their in's capital, the only thing we do is modernized and covertly ship italians to live peacefully with the natives

I see. The policy, although with good intentions, will ultimately fail. Again, identity is a very strong feeling. This policy would only encourage a stronger sense of identity: "Them and Us" (as separate).

[The imperial canadian dutchy]

Oh sorry i meant by lassiez faire, leave them alone, as far as they know the capital is in what ever colony their in's capital, the only thing we do is modernized and covertly ship italians to live peacefully with the natives

I see. The policy, although with good intentions, will ultimately fail. Again, identity is a very strong feeling. This policy would only encourage a stronger sense of identity: "Them and Us" (as separate).

COuld you go into more detail