A Troubled World [OOC - OPEN]

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

I thought this was only limited to Denmark, since you didn't specify the others in your location section. Please specify next time. I will have to talk about this with OP. I will advocate for you to gain Iceland and possibly Gothenburg to Malmö, but that's it.

Hold on, so I can't have anything else? Okay, so first i wanted to occupy Germany Czech Republic, Poland Scandinavia Finland the baltic states and Iceland+Greenland. Then Serbia-Macedonia encouraged me to reduce it down to Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Greenland. A while later I was told I had to reduce the number of people I had and military because "my territory did not match my population. I agreed, but only if I could also occupy Sweden {Additionally}. And now I am being told that I can't have Greenland, Norway, Sweden, and Iceland? I don't understand!

Because something was written in a way that was very confusing to me, now I can't even have half of my claimed territory?!

I was one of the first to apply! You can ask Serbia Macedonia, he was the one who approved me and made me a deal. Plus, if it was in my history, how come it is now being revealed as unknown?

Hmmm.

I think that you can take Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the southwest Swedish coast.

I assumed that it was only Denmark because of the location. We wanted the IRL equivalents of your territory, not what you call the conglomeration of the territory or the general region it’s in.

[Malay Raya]

@Pilipinas, wanna RP about Spratly Archipelago? Or is there some lore behind it in this RP?

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

App;

NS Nation: Minskiev
RP Nation: The Democratic State of Japan
Real or Fictional: Real

Capital: Tokyo
Leader: Shinzō Abe
Leader Title: Prime Minister
Government Type: Republic
Population: 126.5 million
Manpower (Note; Manpower must not exceed 10% of population, and if it goes above 7%, it will be severely underfunded as will your other needs): 500,000, .3% of pop.
Nuclear Weapons (Y or N; Note that only nations with population exceeding 50m and full 10% of population enlisted can have nukes): N
Location: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Sakhalin, Pacific Islands,
Brief History: After Hiroshima, Japan surrendered under the conditions that they kept their pre-1937 land, but they’d become democratic. However, they were made to surrender Korea and East Hebei, until their intervention in the Korean War granted them South Korea. Other than that, anything IRL.

Fixed.

Just to make sure, can you please specify where the Pacific Islands that you are claiming are located?

[Minskiev]

1. The British Empire didn't rely so much in their sugar colonies in 1812. The war of 1812 granted America the British carribean islands, those islands were less of a worth to Britain during that time anyway, and Slavery has been ended. The british already had India in that time.

2. The great depression happened because the mass production lines made to supply the British and French in ww1 suddenly lost their customer, leaving many people jobless. This happened because the war ended. Canada then wasn't that much of importance to British economy because it was a settler colony, and Britain's wealth primarily comes from the extracting of natural resources in Africa and India, trade in Malacca, and the industry in India.

3. If America stayed out WW1 would have turned out the same anyway. The British and French were close to ending the war when America joined, they created the Matilda tank to break the stalemate and it proved effective.

First off, there were no land exchanges in the Treaty of Ghent, at all, I believe, and second off, if Britain didn’t rely so much on their sugar colonies in 1812, then why did they pull over troops to protect it against Spain in the American Revolution, an event not too distant from the war of 1812?
Third off, I’m pretty sure Britain ended slavery in 1836, although that could be incorrect.

Fourth off, how could they suddenly lose their customer, if the Great Depression was over a decade from the end of WW1? When the U.S. markets ‘suddenly’ lost the French and British demand, their economy didn’t fall. It reached an economic peak. Fifth off, why are you assuming that the British and Americans would become allies? You took even more land from them, and you didn’t really state that you became allies. Sixth off, I know India and the Straits of Malacca are valuable land for the Brits, but Canada also supplies good soldiers.

Seventh off, the outcome would not have been guaranteed to be the same, since the lack of American troops could have accelerated the French army revolts, bringing about a massive collapse in the French lines. Eighth off, the Matilda was created in 1936, so...also, tanks weren’t that effective in WW1. Sure, your K-Wagen could stand up to an infantry division. But what if a plane was overhead? What if they had artillery, which they most likely did?

I realize this was from awhile ago, however I simply felt the need to address it.

For AN, let’s say...Okinawa, the Marshall Islands, the Bonin Islands, the Palau Islands, the Caroline Islands, the Mariana Islands, Guam, Wake Island, and Iwo Jima.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

List of nations that are accepted is up.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

1. The British Empire didn't rely so much in their sugar colonies in 1812. The war of 1812 granted America the British carribean islands, those islands were less of a worth to Britain during that time anyway, and Slavery has been ended. The british already had India in that time.

2. The great depression happened because the mass production lines made to supply the British and French in ww1 suddenly lost their customer, leaving many people jobless. This happened because the war ended. Canada then wasn't that much of importance to British economy because it was a settler colony, and Britain's wealth primarily comes from the extracting of natural resources in Africa and India, trade in Malacca, and the industry in India.

3. If America stayed out WW1 would have turned out the same anyway. The British and French were close to ending the war when America joined, they created the Matilda tank to break the stalemate and it proved effective.

First off, there were no land exchanges in the Treaty of Ghent, at all, I believe, and second off, if Britain didn’t rely so much on their sugar colonies in 1812, then why did they pull over troops to protect it against Spain in the American Revolution, an event not too distant from the war of 1812?
Third off, I’m pretty sure Britain ended slavery in 1836, although that could be incorrect.

Fourth off, how could they suddenly lose their customer, if the Great Depression was over a decade from the end of WW1? When the U.S. markets ‘suddenly’ lost the French and British demand, their economy didn’t fall. It reached an economic peak. Fifth off, why are you assuming that the British and Americans would become allies? You took even more land from them, and you didn’t really state that you became allies. Sixth off, I know India and the Straits of Malacca are valuable land for the Brits, but Canada also supplies good soldiers.

Seventh off, the outcome would not have been guaranteed to be the same, since the lack of American troops could have accelerated the French army revolts, bringing about a massive collapse in the French lines. Eighth off, the Matilda was created in 1936, so...also, tanks weren’t that effective in WW1. Sure, your K-Wagen could stand up to an infantry division. But what if a plane was overhead? What if they had artillery, which they most likely did?

I realize this was from awhile ago, however I simply felt the need to address it.

For AN, let’s say...Okinawa, the Marshall Islands, the Bonin Islands, the Palau Islands, the Caroline Islands, the Mariana Islands, Guam, Wake Island, and Iwo Jima.

Marianas, Guam and Wake Island are off-limits, since the US has claimed them. I understand that you were here first, but I'm honestly not in the mood to start yet another territory dispute. If you want more islands to replace the three, just mention them and they'll be accepted.

[Sarderia]

1. The British Empire didn't rely so much in their sugar colonies in 1812. The war of 1812 granted America the British carribean islands, those islands were less of a worth to Britain during that time anyway, and Slavery has been ended. The british already had India in that time.

2. The great depression happened because the mass production lines made to supply the British and French in ww1 suddenly lost their customer, leaving many people jobless. This happened because the war ended. Canada then wasn't that much of importance to British economy because it was a settler colony, and Britain's wealth primarily comes from the extracting of natural resources in Africa and India, trade in Malacca, and the industry in India.

3. If America stayed out WW1 would have turned out the same anyway. The British and French were close to ending the war when America joined, they created the Matilda tank to break the stalemate and it proved effective.

First off, there were no land exchanges in the Treaty of Ghent, at all, I believe, and second off, if Britain didn’t rely so much on their sugar colonies in 1812, then why did they pull over troops to protect it against Spain in the American Revolution, an event not too distant from the war of 1812?
Third off, I’m pretty sure Britain ended slavery in 1836, although that could be incorrect.

Fourth off, how could they suddenly lose their customer, if the Great Depression was over a decade from the end of WW1? When the U.S. markets ‘suddenly’ lost the French and British demand, their economy didn’t fall. It reached an economic peak. Fifth off, why are you assuming that the British and Americans would become allies? You took even more land from them, and you didn’t really state that you became allies. Sixth off, I know India and the Straits of Malacca are valuable land for the Brits, but Canada also supplies good soldiers.

Seventh off, the outcome would not have been guaranteed to be the same, since the lack of American troops could have accelerated the French army revolts, bringing about a massive collapse in the French lines. Eighth off, the Matilda was created in 1936, so...also, tanks weren’t that effective in WW1. Sure, your K-Wagen could stand up to an infantry division. But what if a plane was overhead? What if they had artillery, which they most likely did?

I realize this was from awhile ago, however I simply felt the need to address it.

For AN, let’s say...Okinawa, the Marshall Islands, the Bonin Islands, the Palau Islands, the Caroline Islands, the Mariana Islands, Guam, Wake Island, and Iwo Jima.

Welp, I've been accepted. So it doesn't really matter here. If you want to talk about realism, talk on why you got South Korea, whose independence is guaranteed by the United States, to be your territory. And MacArthur granting Japan its surrender while keeping most of the land is practically impossible since the US had just atom-bombed them. I guess there would be a much larger tension between Japan and the US IC-ly, since you kept South Korea.

And OP, since you scrutinized my app when it includes Canada, I'm pointing at the fact Japan owning South Korea is impossible, because the US had guaranteed their independence, and there's no way Koreans wouldn't start a mass uprising against Japanese rule.

[The Pearl River]

App;

NS Nation:
RP Nation: Empire of Brazil
Real or Fictional: Fictional

Capital: Brasilia
Leader: Dom Pedro V
Leader Title: Emperor of Brazil
Government Type: Absolute monarchy
Population: 210 million
Manpower: Total Military Size - 2,000,000 military personnel. 456,000 ACTIVE, 1,544,000 RESERVE
Breakdown of Ground Sector - Tanks: 482, Armored Fighting Vehicles: 1850, Self-Propelled Artillery 136, Towed Artillery: 599, Rocket Projectors: 210.

Breakdown of Naval Sector - 5 Destroyers, 12 Frigates, 8 Corvettes, 7 Submarines, 86 Patrol Vehicles, 6 Mine Warfare Vessels

Breakdown of Air Force Sector - 78 Fighter Aircraft, 193 Attack Aircraft, 200 Transport Aircraft, 32 Attack Helicopters, 256 Total Helicopters, 198 Trainer Aircraft

Nuclear Weapons: N
Location: Brazil, Argentina (Misiones, Corrientes, Formosa, Chaco) Uruguay, and Paraguay
Brief History: Pedro II crushed republican rebellions and the mutiny among the army. During his reign and her daughter Isabel Brazil abolished slavery, and grew as the economic powerhouse of south america rivaling Argentina and colombia. Being one of the few absolute monarchies, brazil has been classified by many as a benevolent dictatorship on the likes of Tito and Ataturk, during the height of the cold war Brazil’s left leaning goverment alienated itself from the rest of south america resulted in the Pampas war, where Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay declared war on brazil after an argentine plane was shot by the brazilian armed forces. Brazil was victorious and annexed Uruguay, Paraguay, and parts of Argentina

[Sarderia]

Well, I'm just surprised at how many nations have 2% to 3% of their population in the military, literally hundreds of tanks and aircrafts and everything else, and their economy just didn't collapse. I mean, US with their IRL military budget (which is to say, most nations here is on par with the US in real life, personnel wise and equipment wise) got a shitload of debt (20 trillion $). China with it's budget only 1/3 of the US budget acquired 4 trillion $ of debt.

[Malay Raya]

Well, I'm just surprised at how many nations have 2% to 3% of their population in the military, literally hundreds of tanks and aircrafts and everything else, and their economy just didn't collapse. I mean, US with their IRL military budget (which is to say, most nations here is on par with the US in real life, personnel wise and equipment wise) got a shitload of debt (20 trillion $). China with it's budget only 1/3 of the US budget acquired 4 trillion $ of debt.

But I won't complain - because of that, my United States in this RP will be the only country that is economically sound, low Debt to GDP ratio, and thriving economy. The rest can bloat their debt and inflation both, and I'm sure the US would love to spread debt traps around the world IC-ly.

True that but on Indochina's defense, we mostly have vintage to semi-modern vehicles/tanks in our arsenal. Fighters and helicopters on the other hand are in logical numbers, at least in my mind. I have a list of them should this RP requires me to post it.

[Sarderia]

Well, I'm just surprised at how many nations have 2% to 3% of their population in the military, literally hundreds of tanks and aircrafts and everything else, and their economy just didn't collapse. I mean, US with their IRL military budget (which is to say, most nations here is on par with the US in real life, personnel wise and equipment wise) got a shitload of debt (20 trillion $). China with it's budget only 1/3 of the US budget acquired 4 trillion $ of debt.

But I won't complain - because of that, my United States in this RP will be the only country that is economically sound, low Debt to GDP ratio, and thriving economy. The rest can bloat their debt and inflation both, and I'm sure the US would love to spread debt traps around the world IC-ly.

True that but on Indochina's defense, we mostly have vintage to semi-modern vehicles/tanks in our arsenal. Fighters and helicopters on the other hand are in logical numbers, at least in my mind. I have a list of them should this RP requires me to post it.

Vietnam seems to utilize WW2-era Soviet tanks in their Army, if I'm not mistaken, so yes that would be plausible. If I'm to publish a list though, it would be the Wikipedia US Armed Forces equipment page. The US in this roleplay don't spend too much in military. I want to implement Obamacare, but there seems to be no way to do so without raising taxes liberally or acquiring trillions of debt.

[Malay Raya]

True that but on Indochina's defense, we mostly have vintage to semi-modern vehicles/tanks in our arsenal. Fighters and helicopters on the other hand are in logical numbers, at least in my mind. I have a list of them should this RP requires me to post it.

Vietnam seems to utilize WW2-era Soviet tanks in their Army, if I'm not mistaken, so yes that would be plausible. If I'm to publish a list, it would be the Wikipedia US Armed Forces equipment factbook though.

Yep. I basically just scoured through all 3 Indochinese nations' equipment wiki pages and tailored the numbers to my preferences.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

First off, there were no land exchanges in the Treaty of Ghent, at all, I believe, and second off, if Britain didn’t rely so much on their sugar colonies in 1812, then why did they pull over troops to protect it against Spain in the American Revolution, an event not too distant from the war of 1812?
Third off, I’m pretty sure Britain ended slavery in 1836, although that could be incorrect.

Fourth off, how could they suddenly lose their customer, if the Great Depression was over a decade from the end of WW1? When the U.S. markets ‘suddenly’ lost the French and British demand, their economy didn’t fall. It reached an economic peak. Fifth off, why are you assuming that the British and Americans would become allies? You took even more land from them, and you didn’t really state that you became allies. Sixth off, I know India and the Straits of Malacca are valuable land for the Brits, but Canada also supplies good soldiers.

Seventh off, the outcome would not have been guaranteed to be the same, since the lack of American troops could have accelerated the French army revolts, bringing about a massive collapse in the French lines. Eighth off, the Matilda was created in 1936, so...also, tanks weren’t that effective in WW1. Sure, your K-Wagen could stand up to an infantry division. But what if a plane was overhead? What if they had artillery, which they most likely did?

I realize this was from awhile ago, however I simply felt the need to address it.

For AN, let’s say...Okinawa, the Marshall Islands, the Bonin Islands, the Palau Islands, the Caroline Islands, the Mariana Islands, Guam, Wake Island, and Iwo Jima.

Welp, I've been accepted. So it doesn't really matter here. If you want to talk about realism, talk on why you got South Korea, whose independence is guaranteed by the United States, to be your territory. And MacArthur granting Japan its surrender while keeping most of the land is practically impossible since the US had just atom-bombed them. I guess there would be a much larger tension between Japan and the US IC-ly, since you kept South Korea.

And OP, since you scrutinized my app when it includes Canada, I'm pointing at the fact Japan owning South Korea is impossible, because the US had guaranteed their independence, and there's no way Koreans wouldn't start a mass uprising against Japanese rule.

We didn't really scrutinise the history. It was more of "your land claims were way too big, so we're trimming it down" kind of thing. However, I do see your point in the rebellions. As for the guarantee, if they were given SK, then why would the US object to that, since they were one of the bigger participants in the war and would likely be the one to write the treaty?

If you're really intent on the Korea thing, Minskiev can get away with it by renaming the nation to something that includes Korea or giving the Koreans a lot of autonomy.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

App;

NS Nation:
RP Nation: Empire of Brazil
Real or Fictional: Fictional

Capital: Brasilia
Leader: Dom Pedro V
Leader Title: Emperor of Brazil
Government Type: Absolute monarchy
Population: 210 million
Manpower: Total Military Size - 2,000,000 military personnel. 456,000 ACTIVE, 1,544,000 RESERVE
Breakdown of Ground Sector - Tanks: 482, Armored Fighting Vehicles: 1850, Self-Propelled Artillery 136, Towed Artillery: 599, Rocket Projectors: 210.

Breakdown of Naval Sector - 5 Destroyers, 12 Frigates, 8 Corvettes, 7 Submarines, 86 Patrol Vehicles, 6 Mine Warfare Vessels

Breakdown of Air Force Sector - 78 Fighter Aircraft, 193 Attack Aircraft, 200 Transport Aircraft, 32 Attack Helicopters, 256 Total Helicopters, 198 Trainer Aircraft

Nuclear Weapons: N
Location: Brazil, Argentina (Misiones, Corrientes, Formosa, Chaco) Uruguay, and Paraguay
Brief History: Pedro II crushed republican rebellions and the mutiny among the army. During his reign and her daughter Isabel Brazil abolished slavery, and grew as the economic powerhouse of south america rivaling Argentina and colombia. Being one of the few absolute monarchies, brazil has been classified by many as a benevolent dictatorship on the likes of Tito and Ataturk, during the height of the cold war Brazil’s left leaning goverment alienated itself from the rest of south america resulted in the Pampas war, where Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay declared war on brazil after an argentine plane was shot by the brazilian armed forces. Brazil was victorious and annexed Uruguay, Paraguay, and parts of Argentina

I just want to ask, can you please explain why Uruguay and Paraguay would join Argentina against Brazil?

[Almadaria]

Since I am both Colombia and Venezuela, it's perfectly fine that I knock up my military personnel up to 268,000, right?

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

@Pilipinas, wanna RP about Spratly Archipelago? Or is there some lore behind it in this RP?

Technically, there is no dispute there between us and China, since I control all the territory around the archipelago. We could have a few squabbles over the areas that are closer to Paracel, but I think that's it.

[Malay Raya]

@Pilipinas, wanna RP about Spratly Archipelago? Or is there some lore behind it in this RP?

Technically, there is no dispute there between us and China, since I control all the territory around the archipelago. We could have a few squabbles over the areas that are closer to Paracel, but I think that's it.

Ah alright nevermind then. We'll see how things go.

[Minskiev]

First off, there were no land exchanges in the Treaty of Ghent, at all, I believe, and second off, if Britain didn’t rely so much on their sugar colonies in 1812, then why did they pull over troops to protect it against Spain in the American Revolution, an event not too distant from the war of 1812?
Third off, I’m pretty sure Britain ended slavery in 1836, although that could be incorrect.

Fourth off, how could they suddenly lose their customer, if the Great Depression was over a decade from the end of WW1? When the U.S. markets ‘suddenly’ lost the French and British demand, their economy didn’t fall. It reached an economic peak. Fifth off, why are you assuming that the British and Americans would become allies? You took even more land from them, and you didn’t really state that you became allies. Sixth off, I know India and the Straits of Malacca are valuable land for the Brits, but Canada also supplies good soldiers.

Seventh off, the outcome would not have been guaranteed to be the same, since the lack of American troops could have accelerated the French army revolts, bringing about a massive collapse in the French lines. Eighth off, the Matilda was created in 1936, so...also, tanks weren’t that effective in WW1. Sure, your K-Wagen could stand up to an infantry division. But what if a plane was overhead? What if they had artillery, which they most likely did?

I realize this was from awhile ago, however I simply felt the need to address it.

For AN, let’s say...Okinawa, the Marshall Islands, the Bonin Islands, the Palau Islands, the Caroline Islands, the Mariana Islands, Guam, Wake Island, and Iwo Jima.

Welp, I've been accepted. So it doesn't really matter here. If you want to talk about realism, talk on why you got South Korea, whose independence is guaranteed by the United States, to be your territory. And MacArthur granting Japan its surrender while keeping most of the land is practically impossible since the US had just atom-bombed them. I guess there would be a much larger tension between Japan and the US IC-ly, since you kept South Korea.

And OP, since you scrutinized my app when it includes Canada, I'm pointing at the fact Japan owning South Korea is impossible, because the US had guaranteed their independence, and there's no way Koreans wouldn't start a mass uprising against Japanese rule.

In our timeline, that is. You’re mixing the alternate timeline with the real world.

First off, we aren’t fanatical imperialists, anymore. We’re Democratic, as stated in the title. We aren’t oppressing the South Koreans, and they’re not our puppet. They’re thought of as part of Japan.

Second off, tell me what the US would want more. A second atom bomb on Nagasaki, needing to invade Japan with its divisions, or the end of WW2, with a Democratic Japan, and Pacific islands to make sure the Asian markets are easily accessible. And it’s not like we sided with the Soviets, so why would there be any tension between us? Please, don’t assume my lore and use it as a point against me.

And alright, Wake, Guam, and the Marianas are theirs.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

Since I am both Colombia and Venezuela, it's perfectly fine that I knock up my military personnel up to 268,000, right?

Perfectly acceptable.

[Sarderia]

Welp, I've been accepted. So it doesn't really matter here. If you want to talk about realism, talk on why you got South Korea, whose independence is guaranteed by the United States, to be your territory. And MacArthur granting Japan its surrender while keeping most of the land is practically impossible since the US had just atom-bombed them. I guess there would be a much larger tension between Japan and the US IC-ly, since you kept South Korea.

And OP, since you scrutinized my app when it includes Canada, I'm pointing at the fact Japan owning South Korea is impossible, because the US had guaranteed their independence, and there's no way Koreans wouldn't start a mass uprising against Japanese rule.

In our timeline, that is. You’re mixing the alternate timeline with the real world.

First off, we aren’t fanatical imperialists, anymore. We’re Democratic, as stated in the title. We aren’t oppressing the South Koreans, and they’re not our puppet. They’re thought of as part of Japan.

Second off, tell me what the US would want more. A second atom bomb on Nagasaki, needing to invade Japan with its divisions, or the end of WW2, with a Democratic Japan, and Pacific islands to make sure the Asian markets are easily accessible. And it’s not like we sided with the Soviets, so why would there be any tension between us? Please, don’t assume my lore and use it as a point against me.

And alright, Wake, Guam, and the Marianas are theirs.

Even if you're democratic there's bound to be a huge amount of resentment to Japanese rule. Historically the Koreans have suffered under wokou pirates, multiple Japanese invasions (the most famous Korean hero, Yi Sun-Sin is a Joseon admiral who fought Toyotomi Hideyoshi's attempt to invade Korea), not to mention the atrocities during Imperial Japanese rule. Since the US is the primary support of South Korea in the Korean War, I doubt the US would give it to Japan willingly. Japan can't just retake a territory that have suffered much under their rule, gained independence for like 5-10 years and expect everything to be calm and serene.

We'd rather invade the islands once again to liberate Korea. For trade deals and everything, China is NPC (and I'd more likely to seek out a closer approach to China, not starting a trade war like the Trump administration). There is the SEA nations for that.

[Minskiev]

Think of it like Northern Ireland, except replace Northern Ireland with South Korea.

Also, it’s been, what, 75 years since WW2? Do you really think Japan hasn’t tried their best to make amends with the Koreans since then? Plus, the Japanese defended them in the Korean War.

I also notice how you seem to shift the focus from the holes in your history, which I pointed out in the eight point argument, onto your warped perception of my history. Interesting move, and also a logical fallacy.

[Agarntrop]

Where is the roster?

[Sarderia]

Think of it like Northern Ireland, except replace Northern Ireland with South Korea.

Also, it’s been, what, 75 years since WW2? Do you really think Japan hasn’t tried their best to make amends with the Koreans since then? Plus, the Japanese defended them in the Korean War.

I also notice how you seem to shift the focus from the holes in your history, which I pointed out in the eight point argument, onto your warped perception of my history. Interesting move, and also a logical fallacy.

Northern Ireland was under English occupation legally since 1542 (Kingdom of Ireland declared by Henry VIII), and things like the Act of Union 1800 gave Great Britain sovereignity over Ireland until the Irish Free State and the Partition. Also should be noted is the migration of English settlers to Ireland, which significantly displaced the traditional Irish, Celtic demographic with Anglo-Saxon people. Meanwhile Japan occupied Korea for less than one century before surrendered to the Allies in 1945, Korea being independent for 10 or so years, and annexed back into Japan. Yeah, nothing similar to Northern Ireland there.

Also, you are the one shifting the focus. The Great Depression didn't happen thing have been removed from my history, and the US did enter WW1. All arguments regarding the DR and Canada's annexation has been explained before. Before you accuse someone of "logical fallacy" I implore you to find out the meaning of that sentence yourself. By shifting this conversation into the topic of my history, you are trying to evade the conversation.

According to Purdue online:
Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.

In this case your comparison of South Korea under Japanese occupation to Northern Ireland is a fallacy, because their history is very different under the circumstances I have explained above.

[Sarderia]

Where is the roster?

In the IC thread

[Agarntrop]

Where is the roster?

In the IC thread

Ah, thanks