[Lunacy] A further response

Day 1,885, 02:35 • Published in United Kingdom France • by Hell The Great


To begin with, let me follow up my previous article here by outlining and responding to a few points. First and foremost, there is no 'group' that cares which party the elected President comes from. As I said in the article, and as I have said many times, and will say again until I'm blue in the face: the party the President comes from has no bearing on his ability to govern. His decisions, his way of governing, and his general competence are the sole measures. And these are the reasons why I wrote that article.

Firstly, I want to dispell this myth that TWO are at fault for some of the previous mishaps, notably, the 'Azores plan'. BigAnt himself acknowledges the planning stage here. As I was in Government at the time, this involved TWO approaching us to outline what they had planned. At first I and MoFA Frerk said no, it was too late and a bad plan, and there was no benefit to the UK taking part in something that would fail. BigAnt as President (and as is his right) overruled us and agree😛 he then spoke with TWO to organise this. However what was made clear throughout was that this was a secondary aim and priority for TWO. There were other more important priorities elsewhere, so the main source of damage for these wars was to come from the UK.

Anyone who tries to say otherwise is simply ignoring a truth for convenience. Then, we have the Canadian retaliation for our invasion. This was never mentioned in the discussion for the Norwegian war as a possibility, yet when it happened, BigAnt took no responsibility and mentioned it simply in passing, that it was to be 'expected'. YOu can see that here. If it is to be expected, (and I should add here, when discussing with a member from TWO HQ yesterday the way forward for the UK, he made it abundantly clear that having the UK with more than one front was unacceptable), then something doesn't quite add up.

If Norway was a TWO sanctioned plan, and it was 'expected' that Canada would invade us, why the day that Canada attacks us, does TWO HQ declare that the UK having two open wars would be a damage drain from other more important fronts? If TWO has more important fronts, would they really have sanctioned or suggested this plan?

This simply does not add up. BigAnt also talks about speaking with Russia - if this is the case, why did no-one in his Government know about these talks (not to mention the war with Norway itself), why did TWO HQ not know about this?

Again, it simply doesn't add up. There are too many questions, too many holes, and quite frankly, all that we need right now is someone or something else to blame: either a trip to the pub or someone who is an easy target, lets say Iain Keers for example, and this mess is basically an exact copy of the mess we had when we annoyed Belgium and Ireland in the space of a few days.

The responses to my previous article didn't just stretch the truth, they directly contradicted it, and the ease with which BigAnt and certain ministers are able to gloss over their past mistakes and actions and claim they're being unfairly targeted, quite frankly, is worrying.





HOWEVER, we are at war. That war and the situation we face is a direct result of the actions BigAnt himself has taken, and any money we lose, any regions we lose, any negative effect that comes from this lays squarely at BigAnts door. Why? Because TWO did not tell BigAnt that he must NE Norway. He told TWO that we needed war, and wanted to invade Canada. As TWO has a lot on right now (lots of campaigns vs Romania, Macedonia vs Greece, and a potential move against Croatia, as well as Poland having some RW issues), he was told that it wasn't a good idea to NE Canada.

As in the meeting BigAnt made it clear he wanted UK war (although I should add, since the meeting things had changed, hence the stance TWO took that Canada was not a good idea), so there was no order; but rather, they said if he has to NE someone, it should be Norway not Canada. There was no TWO order, there was nothing other than BigAnt requesting war after it being 'quiet' (despite at the time it being a week or so since the last TW with Ireland).

So to summarise, the facts just do not match up with what BigAnt says. Either he intentionally invaded Norway knowing that Canada would invade, and ignored what our allies asked (for no big wars to drain damage), or he was so desperate for war that he didn't even think about Canada and was outwitted by a nation that is hardly known for its tactical prowess. His accounts that this was TWO mandated, or TWO ordered, are not true: ask TWO HQ yourself if you wish. Their exact words: there was no "order" or "permission". (Its normal practice in an alliance for countries to approach HQ, as BigAnt did, before opening a war to make sure it doesn't put other wars at risk of being lost.

PS: when we were being attacked from Canada, and BigAnt opened a battle for Sorlandet early, this yet again contradicts his account. (if the plan was really to wipe Norway, it makes sense for such a battle to be started later, when Wales was closed - this would mean we can focus both on Wales, and then when that has finished, Norway).


The future, is for BigAnt to solve this mess. Whilst an impeachment was in my opinion not the best way, it went up. It should have waited until BigAnt actively responded to the situation. Leaving us completely in the dark about wars and approaches is not in itself deserving of impeachment: but having a government that you don't tell anything defeats the purpose of even having ministers. So BigAnt - in the future, please be honest about your plans, actually tell your Government and ministers what is going on, and most importantly, dont blame your own misjudgements and failures on TWO.



The following explanation, in image form

The plan now that we have a war with NL, Norway and Canada, should be to focus on the Canadian front. Netherlands only border our Norwegian region of Vestlandet, so the best solution would be for us is to do the following;

If Norway attack Scotland (their only possible attack, should the Netherlands attack Vestlandet, which is their only possible attack), we should if possible try to win. This is because if they do win, they have more regions they can attack because Scotland broders other UK regions.

The plan would then force Netherlands to attack Scotlan😛 if we lose that battle, it would cut off the borders that we have with Norway, meaning that war closes. Then all we need to do, is win the next battle against the Netherlands, to stop their advance. After that battle, we will have to start a Resistance War in the Norwegian region of Vestlandet, that we lost previously to NL. Once that is returned to Norway, NL have no chance of getting to us, provided we can win back Scotland. This, we will have two chances at. First, BigAnt will have an option to attack it directly. However, if we should fail in that, we can move 10 people to Scotland, and when the direct battle closes, we can start a Resistance War.

The reason I talk about Resistance Wars, is because the Netherlands are a small nation militarily, and thus it will be somewhat easier for us and TWO to take regions off them than it would be other nations, such as Canada. Once we have that, we will have closed the Norway and NL wars, thus, we are left with the Canadian War.

However, a foresight on BigAnt's part, is that Norway will always border us. Thus, if they're out for revenge, they will just NE us again and again, and try to throw a spanner in the works. I would hope they wouldn't hold a grudge against a country for BigAnts actions, but if they do: whatever we do, we'll be facing two fronts - which TWO HQ has stated is a problem. The solution isn't perfect, because the situation we are in is not perfect. However, it is possible for us to survive this, its a matter of how much it costs us to do so.