Concert of Europe

Gentlemen.

While the current investigation into the Cypris affair is ongoing I feel the time is right to present to my fellow atendees a thought that has been at the forefront of my mind for several weeks now, what will happen to the balkans after the war?

Now the Russian Tzar has made his intentions rather clear, the division of the Balkan region between himself and his, for want of a better term, accomplis the Austrian Emperor under a prettily worded right of conquest. A conquest that wasnt even presented for consideration to the concert. Odd, I find myself saying, didn't we fight a bloody war to repel the last person to do so? Didnt we form this very concert to ensure such would not happen again?

Yet when such concerns were raised I found the concert members indifferent to such flagrant expansionism, indeed in the case of France their words were in conflict with thier very actions, urging an end yet sending ships and men to aid in the Russian-Ottoman War. Why, in such fevror were they to join the fight that they appear to have attempted to capture one of the British Empires's trade vessels by mistake in an incident that cost 40 lives. Gentlemen unless something changes this concert will become a failure. As such I have spent several days of discussion with fellow concert members and have formulated a solution that should appease all parties and end this trend of expansionism in its tracks.

Gentlmen, Great Britain proposes that instead of dividing the balkan area between themselves that the Concert pledges itself to restoring the Scions of Palaiologos to the throne of Constantinople, and to secure thier claim I propose that they be joined with the decendants of the last to call themselves Latin emperors on constantinople's seat the Capets.

As such I propose a union between Maximillion of Austria, Scion of Palaiologos, and Olga Nikolaevna of Russia, Scion of Capet. I urge that the Concert name the couple rulers of Byzantium and that Russia, Austria and France change thier war goals to restore the lands that were under the byzantium empire in 1095 and found a New Byzantium Empire with the couple as rulers.

The Count if Chotkow and Wognin would like to address the remarks of the noble and eloquent Chateaubriand:

Sir your misunderstanding of Prince Metternich words I hope were due to translations difficulties, you being accustomed to Bretton perhaps. The Prince invited discussion on Balkan matters "The Balkan questions Gentlemen we are happy to discuss" being his exact words. Already your representatives have been invited to all the liberated areas to see for yourselves the continuing movements on the front line and to help administer the regions until the peace is restored. The point that M. Chateaubriand seemingly fails to understand is that actions are still in progress that God alone will decide and cannot be guaranteed by the Kaisers forces alone. You may wish for certain distribution or a new Monarch but the egg is not yet hatched. Battles have been won but the campaign is not over. We must therefore state that any discussion of any new Monarch or distribution of Balkan land must be hypothetical as yet. It is not within our power to decide the fate of the campaign.

As for M. Chateaubriands remarks concerning Cyprus may we ask if the French Government acted in this regard and more particularly in regard of the Naval base with English consent? We assume not and as such how can he claim this is the Concerts policy?

Regarding the remarks of the Noble Admiral Yevfimy Putyatin that "the people of Holstein called for a Prussian unification of the German States (sanctioned by treaties) and its people wish to join Prussia" we are quite flabbergasted at such a statement... It literaly defies belief that a representative of the 'Autocrat of all the Russias', as his Imperial Highness the Czar sometimes titles himself, wishes to allow such a dangerous precedent to be followed that would undoubtedly undermine the position of his Imperial Master. We can only assume this must be a mistake. If the Admiral could perhaps direct me to these Treaties where such revolutionary principles are sanctioned I would be most eager to read them.

Actually to be quite frank, the point you and russia keep making: that the war is still ongoing so it's irrelevent, is itself irrelevent. I need an answer now because without a compromise I am going to resume helping the ottomans, I might even join the war on thier side and I doubt that you really want me as an enemy.

Thank you Count von Chotkow und Wognin for pointing my mistake in explaining myself. What I was saying is that with the Congress of Vienna, Holstein was recognized as a part of the German Confederation and so it shall remain. That it wishes to form an alliance with Prussia is the duchy's choice. Since Schleswig was never part of such confederation, but under older treaties (Ribe), the two regions decided to never be divided. Russia feels that splitting Schleswig, technically remaining true to all these treaties, will be the best solution to preserve peace.

As for these "scions", the Czar himself is Friedrich Wilhelm I of Prussia's descendant and member of that byzantine line. But frankly I said how a ruler sitting in Constantinople will be an unstable polity, not to mention a possible rift between Austria and Russia, at the same time a threat to both empires, with claims to their crowns.

I would also like for the Concert to define Britain's position in the current war. We respect its membership and voice in the Concert's matters, but with the Turkish war, the Queen has made clear where Her allegiances stand.
On a last note, I forgot to define the Czar's position for the Ottoman's future: as proclaimed this is a liberation of the Balkans and Russia hopes in the future the Sultan will accept the Concert's authority and possibly become its friend. His Imperial Majesty wishes the Turks to acknowledge the Concert's rule in european affairs and could very well define an Ottoman sphere of influence in the east, which will be respected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

As for these "scions", the Czar himself is Friedrich Wilhelm I of Prussia's descendant and member of that byzantine line. But frankly I said how a ruler sitting in Constantinople will be an unstable polity, not to mention a possible rift between Austria and Russia, at the same time a threat to both empires, with claims to their crowns.

---

I disagree.
With the support of Russia, Austria, France and Britain the stability of such a nation would be child's play to maintain. Last I checked a marital bond was something that strengthened ties, not weakened them, and if Russia is really so concerned about claims it would be simple to just make them renounce such claims in favor of Byzantium. I proposed the union because it would put a person from both Austria and Russia in charge of the region while removing the reason for my objection, sticking the Tzar on the throne would render the excersise pointless.
Finally I question the tzar's logic at considering a potential ally of the same dynasty as a threat worthy of risking war with Britain over avoiding.

Quote:

---

I would also like for the Concert to define Britain's position in the current war. We respect its membership and voice in the Concert's matters, but with the Turkish war, the Queen has made clear where Her allegiances stand.

---

We object to you invading with the express purpose of taking land for yourself, we find your past actions and constant rebuking of any attempts at compromise indicative of your stated reasons being false, we resent having our objections constantly dismissed instead of debated or negociated and we find it questionable in the least that it seems noone else has a problem with this.
The question isn't why I'm doing this but why noone else is.

OOC: note to self: future posts must not require multiple edits to stop being inflamatory.

Farsight seems to be amiss to you Sir, a line with claims on Constantinople, Moscow and Vienna is a major threat and viable to cause succession wars. And as for marriages didn't Napoleon marry Kaiser Franz II of Austria's daughter? Besides with Britain already funding and supplying an enemy, what will stop it from doing the same with this King of Constantinople against other nations?

This war was unofficially accepted by every member of the Concert, except Britain, as it never allowed any possibilty of discourse: the Czar clearly called for an holy war and the completion of the greek liberation. The British unlike any other nation, see it in their own paranoid and monopolistic fashion. As for my inquiry to the conference, it isn't your motive that concern us; we know that the mad man sees what he sees. What we are putting to question is that if Britain is supplying the Saracens, then your government has no say in this matter, at the end of the war will have to pay reparations to Austria, Greece and Russia for the damage and lost lives it is causing.

All I have to say to that is:
1. That's why I said the couple would renounce thier family claims to anything but Byzantium.
2. You are not getting a penny for lives lost in your illigitamate war.
3. Making comparison's to napoleon is rich coming from the wannabe conquerer

Gentlemen is this a member of the Concert? A kingdom keeping european interests and stability at heart? We have been sitting here, discussing for hours and they haven't even spoke about the Schleswig-Holstein question.
No, dear friends, this is a monopolistic and selfish country, set to keep all of us locked and at its mercy! Where are the British, who promised to help Greece? They are giving weapons to the Turks! And most of all impeding operations like the liberation of Cyprus.

They want to enrich themselves by funding Europe's enemies, while they kill us! They don't have any morals or christian spirit of brotherhood, they are avaricious, promoting our suffering and european instability to expand their global aspirations!

So when you run out of legitimate arguments you resort to attacks on character. It's almost as if he's losing faith in his position.

It is entirely a question of character in understanding the motivations behind these proposals. What has been heard from Britain in the past years were self-serving and unfounded lies. Here is Russia pledging to the Concert, at a formal conference, that the straits will remain free. Just like previously announced.
And what better way to preserve peace and stability is there, other than expanding the borders of Austria, Russia and Greece? Whose sovereigns are working together and for the Concert's purpose.

The British alternative is a pretext to continue its weaponry exportation policy. What's worse, is that it is pointed against the very own Europe of the Concert. These aren't speculations, but proven and undenied practices, ongoing as we speak!

Quote:

---

It is entirely a question of character in understanding the motivations behind these proposals. What has been heard from Britain in the past years were self-serving and unfounded lies. Here is Russia pledging to the Concert, at a formal conference, that the straits will remain free. Just like previously announced.
And what better way to preserve peace and stability is there, other than expanding the borders of Austria, Russia and Greece? Whose sovereigns are working together and for the Concert's purpose.

---

The concert's purpose? The concert's purpose is to maintain the balance of power, not to provide aid for Russia's self centered expansion. Your actions upset the order of things and if it goes unopposed will set a precident of unregulated expansion in europe that goes against everything the concert has done and stood for till now. Why, the baseless rhetoric you spout to cover your intention isn't even your idea! As with the rest of the concert I did recieve Frances meassage:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Sires,
there are two affairs threatening the peace of Europe - the Balkans and Schleswig-Holstein. We, the concert of five, should try to find a peaceful and lasting solution.

To the Balkans: It is obvious, that the Turk will not be able to control the Balkans any longer. New nationalistic states are evil, so I do see only one solution. I suggest that Austria and Russia get the mandate to share the control over the Balkans for five years. Russia should get all Slavic and Orthodox provinces. Austria should take the rest. Both have to guarantee order in their districts.
Asia Minor is another source of instability. We think that We have to stop the fighting there. The Turkish control has to be reinstalled with the support of the concert. Any egoistic ambitions have to be rejected. The straits have to remain under the control of the Turks, but free for all.

Regarding S-H, all hostilities have to be avoided.

Good luck
Chateaubriand

---

After recieveing his message I only recieved one more message before the conversation abruptly ceased to be sent to me. How can it be the will of the concert when one of it's founding members was excluded from it's decision making? And the very idea that your occupation is the best way to maintain peace and stability is patently absurd, especially considering it is you that is causing the region's instability and conflict.

Quote:

---

The British alternative is a pretext to continue its weaponry exportation policy. What's worse, is that it is pointed against the very own Europe of the Concert. These aren't speculations, but proven and undenied practices, ongoing as we speak!

---

The British alternative is to continue the war with a different method and with Britain joining on your side. If you would agree you would get what is wanted: stability and peace in the balkans under a christian state while promoting the ideal of the authority of monachy, so why are you taking issue? The only difference between my vision and France's is that it won't be your state holding the balkans in the end. Is that it? From where I come from that is called self centered expansionism.

Finally, I must remind the concert that my weaponry only remains "pointed at the very europe of the concert" because of Russia's stubborness.

Sirs may we deal with one issue at a time?

On the Shcleiswig Holstein question it seems to his Majesties Government that Shcleiswig Holstein is a single region. It is not for the people of one part of this region to decide their own affairs; such a principle is dangerous. Either Shcleiswig Holstein as a whole accepts a Prussian alliance or it does not. Perhaps we could ask the Prince of this region, who also is the King of Denmark, if such a solution is agreeable?

On any final Balkan resolution: I am quite at a loss to understand to understand how the ongoing nature of the campaign is "irrelevent". I can no more guarantee a 'New Byzantium' or a 'Free Constantinople' at present than I can guarantee that the weather will be fine tomorrow. We have already invited official and reporters from all Powers to the liberated regions and wait for the Concerts advice.

In principle we have no objection to 'New Byzantium' proposed by England. We note though that the map supplied by England would include the territory of the King of Greece... It may be that he may object one might think. There could be future Byzantine claims that may similarly disputed. Likewise we have no objection in principle to the plan put forward by the Noble Admiral. We would welcome though a more detailed description and perhaps a map of the 'Russian Plan' showing 'free cities'. Is Sofia, for example, to be a 'free city'?

The Noble Admiral states that one of his worthy goals is to 'force the Sultan to accept the Concerts authority in Europe': We welcome this aim and share it. IF this worthy aim is indeed our purpose may it not be that our recent victories may have achieved this aim already? The Sultan has considerable problems of his own to deal with and may indeed welcome a negotiated settlement and even our support in maintaining himself. Would he not accept a solution that the Concert dictated? We feel sure that an ultimatum made to him by England and France, under threat of war, would bring him to the negotiating table.

So gentlemen let us agree this aim and general principle suggested by the Noble Admiral: The authority of the Concert in Europe is our aim. Let us then see if the Sultan will accept this authority for he must recognise the grave consequences. If the Sultan agrees to negotiate all well and good; we can dictate terms. If he refuses he denies all our authority.

Sry dble post

That Schleswig and Holstein had to sign treaties of political alignment, alone goes to show that considering them a single region is a diplomatical concept for easier reference. Russia has no problem with it, but considering the recent turmoils, it seems this solution (united region, going to one side only), will exacerbate internal tensions and eventually will not resolve the matter.

Regarding the Balkans, as inquired by the Count, here is the detailed partition:

- to Austria the lands west of the Carpathians and north of the Pindus mountains, with the major centers of Belgrade, Sarajevo, Tirana and Skopje.

- to Russia the lands east of the Carpathians and north of the Rhodopes mountains, with the major centers of Iasi, Bucharest, Sofia and Edirne.

- To Greece the lands south of the Pindus and the Rhodopes mountains, with the major centers of Thessaloniki, Ioannina, Larissa, Cyprus, Crete, Rhodes and the Dodecanese. Would also be a nice gesture and reparation by the British to cede the Ionian Islands.

- Constantinople, Gallipoli and Rhaedestos will become each an independent free city. For these fielding an army would be illegal and will have only a self-defense militia, living under the Concert's protection. All the members will be able to set mercantile companies and embassies there. This ensures complete neutrality and avoids any ruler set in Constantinople to form pacts and alliances or impose trading preferences.

Also as the Count von Chotkow und Wognin pointed out a Byzantine kingdom stands as a very unstable entity: would it demand a greek annexation? Would it claim lands in the Crimea and Dalmatia? Would it engage in constant warfare or diplomatical tension with Asia?
This resolution that Russia is proposing keeps austrian influence solely in the Adriatic Sea, greek in the Ionian and Aegean Seas, russian in the Black Sea. And impartial, Concert's rule for the Straits. Firm and peaceful authority encompassing the Balkans, preventing nationalism and avoiding any conflict due to local enmities.

If the Sultan is willing to accept those terms and sign a treaty, the Czar will be more than grateful and will send aid to help in the Ottoman recovery and stabilization.

"It is reported that body of General Benedek today passed into Belgrade, the Hero of Iasi, where it was greeted with a full military guard. The Archduke Charles led the procession. Commenting on plans for a funeral a member of the Archdukes Staff said "General Benedek was a Hungarian hero of the Empire. He shall be layed to rest in St Stephens in Budapest". When asked about reports of rebellion in Hungary he replied "Let them think again before dishonouring their own."

Meanwhile Count Josip Jelačić has been appointed Ban of Croatia-Slavonia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood

On any final Balkan resolution: I am quite at a loss to understand to understand how the ongoing nature of the campaign is "irrelevent". I can no more guarantee a 'New Byzantium' or a 'Free Constantinople' at present than I can guarantee that the weather will be fine tomorrow. We have already invited official and reporters from all Powers to the liberated regions and wait for the Concerts advice.

---

...Because at the moment, as far as I can see, without support the ottomans are all but beaten, if Britain joins now on the russian side thier success is certain, whereas is if Britain joins on the ottoman's side, well, let's just say it will become less certain. Considering there is doubts that the Ottomans will keep fighting on it's own next turn, Britain is making the choice now. If you and russia do not abandon any plans of dividing the balkans between yourselves Britain will join the Ottomans. The Byzantium plan is merely a compromise and if it is agreed to you can keep britain from joining the ottomans and have the balkans become ruled by a christian state.

Quote:

---

In principle we have no objection to 'New Byzantium' proposed by England. We note though that the map supplied by England would include the territory of the King of Greece... It may be that he may object one might think. There could be future Byzantine claims that may similarly disputed.

---

My apologies that I could not find a map that showed the desired boundaries that didn't include thier dominion over greece, Britain has no intention to push the kindom of greece into a new byzantium empire.

Sir, while we heartily welcome the British expression that a 'New Byzantium' would have no Greek claim at present may we ask for how long and to what extent England is willing to guarantee such a claim - not only on Greece but on the Levant, Egypt and even parts of Italy. Certainly while we welcome the recognition of Greece surely other boundaries must be set on any 'New Byzantium' by Treaty?

Such a Treaty must include the Sultan of course and my Honourable English counterpart alludes to this when he remarks "the ottomans are all but beaten". I must inform the English delegation that we honestly do not know this to be the case. He may perhaps know better than us of course.

What the Hon Gentleman does not refer to however is a proposed negotiation with the Sultan... Now we understand that the division proposed by the Noble Admiral may not meet his approval but perhaps he would care to consider a solution in which the Sultan accepts the authority of the Concert in Europe as a starting point? We have not heard England on this proposal.

Whether a 'New Byzantium' or a 'free city' long term solution his Highness will follow the will of the Concert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood

Sir, while we heartily welcome the British expression that a 'New Byzantium' would have no Greek claim at present may we ask for how long and to what extent England is willing to guarantee such a claim - not only on Greece but on the Levant, Egypt and even parts of Italy. Certainly while we welcome the recognition of Greece surely other boundaries must be set on any 'New Byzantium' by Treaty?

---

Indeed, and I would be delighted to negociate such boundaries.

Quote:

---

Such a Treaty must include the Sultan of course and my Honourable English counterpart alludes to this when he remarks "the ottomans are all but beaten". I must inform the English delegation that we honestly do not know this to be the case. He may perhaps know better than us of course.

---

I allude to the fact that the sultan as the sick man of europe is facing down two concert members. His overall odds on his own are similar to a quadrapalegic facing down an army sergeant.

Quote:

---

What the Hon Gentleman does not refer to however is a proposed negotiation with the Sultan... Now we understand that the division proposed by the Noble Admiral may not meet his approval but perhaps he would care to consider a solution in which the Sultan accepts the authority of the Concert in Europe as a starting point? We have not heard England on this proposal.

---

In the matters of europe it makes sense that an outsider should abide by the decisions of the ruling authority and I would suppor such a stipulation in a peace treaty, though I contend the idea that there is any authority when the concert is not in unison.

OoC: how's the rest of the chapter coming along? And where are France and Prussia? :O

Chateaubriand clears his throat and waits until it is silent. Then he raises his voice:

Gentlemen, I am pleased to see that there are some fruitful disussions between the delegates of Russia and England. Maybe I can add something here to accelerate the progress to find a solution.

To Schleswig-Holstein, we heard some good proposals, esp. from Russia, but I think we should not disuss this any further as long as the emissary of Prussia gave us his view.
To the irritation about the Cyprus operation - there seem to be some misunderstandings here, still. The Cyprus operation was carried out by the Greek army to free the island from the Turks. As Cyprus is undoubtably Greek, there should not be any doubt that this operation was in line with the resolutions of the Concert. The Greek monarch asked France for some logistical and military support, which was given immediately. In fact, the support was limited to screen the invasion against the Ottoman Navy and to support the invasion by a small detachment of French elite soldiers. The only target - the liberation of the island - was quickly achieved. and the island i now under control of the Greek monarch. I am sure that this fact finds the agreement and applause of all members of the Concert.
Finally, to secure the island against any counterstrike of the Turks, the Greek monarch asked the Royal French Navy to keep a squad there and therefore ceded a naval base to France. I wonder how anybody could think that this was not in line with the principles or the resolutions of the Concert. And I am really amazed that Austria seems to be worried about. Maybe the Austrian emissary can explain this more in detail.
As I said before, the Cyprus operation had only one goal, to get the island under control of the Greek monarch. No others. There had not been and there is no connection to the war on the Balkans. France had not the intention to join the military operations there nor to stop the delivery of weapons which England had already stopped. In the meantime, the operation is finished and that is all.

So let's turn to the most burning issue, the Balkans. I can understand the anger of London about the war on the Balkans. It is true that it was wrong to start the hostilities without a clear mandate from the concert, wrong and against the resolutions of the concert, regardless if this is a just war or just another war for territorial expansion. So far, France agrees with the position of England. However, the elder statesman Metternich is right, if he says, that one cannot discuss about principle issues while the war is going on. France agrees though witht the view of England that the Concert cannot wait until the war is over to discuss his legitimacy. Therefore we demand that Austria and Russia immediately stop the campaign until they get a mandate from the concert.
Regarding the future of the Balkans, France has not decided yet if it supports the idea of an independant Balkan realm or the division of the Balkans amoung Russia and Austria. Maybe a third option should be considered: Austria and Russia share the Balkans, but Constantinople and the area around remains under the control of the sultan. This would be the best solution for the Dardanelles. Everbody should support the status of the Ottoman Empire on Asia Minor, France could think about sending some of our big cannons for the straits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Therefore we demand that Austria and Russia immediately stop the campaign until they get a mandate from the concert.

---

Wouldn't it be possible for such mandate to be issued by this conference?
With many lives at stake, prolonging the campaign on technicalities will result in deaths that could've been avoided...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Regarding the future of the Balkans, France has not decided yet if it supports the idea of an independant Balkan realm or the division of the Balkans amoung Russia and Austria. Maybe a third option should be considered: Austria and Russia share the Balkans, but Constantinople and the area around remains under the control of the sultan. This would be the best solution for the Dardanelles.

---

No side has ever stated that Constantinople and the Straits would go to any of the parties. If I may redirect the conference's attention to our proposal:

Quote:

---

- to Austria the lands west of the Carpathians and north of the Pindus mountains, with the major centers of Belgrade, Sarajevo, Tirana and Skopje.

- to Russia the lands east of the Carpathians and north of the Rhodopes mountains, with the major centers of Iasi, Bucharest, Sofia and Edirne.

- To Greece the lands south of the Pindus and the Rhodopes mountains, with the major centers of Thessaloniki, Ioannina, Larissa, Cyprus, Crete, Rhodes and the Dodecanese. Would also be a nice gesture and reparation by the British to cede the Ionian Islands.

- Constantinople, Gallipoli and Rhaedestos will become each an independent free city. For these fielding an army would be illegal and will have only a self-defense militia, living under the Concert's protection. All the members will be able to set mercantile companies and embassies there. This ensures complete neutrality and avoids any ruler set in Constantinople to form pacts and alliances or impose trading preferences.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Everbody should support the status of the Ottoman Empire on Asia Minor, France could think about sending some of our big cannons for the straits.

---

We made that clear already and Russia is willing to consider the possibility of preserving Ottoman presence at the Straits. Provided the Sultan would submit to the Concert's authority.

Yes, Admiral, this mandate could be - and has to be - given in this conference. However, I understood - maybe misunderstood - the words of the Austrian delegation as a "let's first finish the Turks and then talk about it". Such a position would be unacceptable for France.
I think that Russia, England and France are close to an agreement. Prussia hasn't particitapted in the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Maybe a third option should be considered: Austria and Russia share the Balkans, but Constantinople and the area around remains under the control of the sultan..

---

Unacceptable, that is not a third option but Russia's desires minus what few free states he would allow, you seem to have missed the ends of my objections, as the future of the straits is not my point of contention and your alteration take what little merit said desires hold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Maybe the Austrian emissary can explain this more in detail.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

It is true that it was wrong to start the hostilities without a clear mandate from the concert...Therefore we demand that Austria and Russia immediately stop the campaign until they get a mandate from the concert.

---

Certainly I shall explain as requested: Our objection is not against the 'liberation' of Cyprus itself but rather the somewhat flimsy interpretation which the loyal Chateaubriand uses for it's justification; "As Cyprus is undoubtably Greek, there should not be any doubt that this operation was in line with the resolutions of the Concert". Well Cyprus wasn't Greek clearly as otherwise no 'liberation' would have been necessary. I could equally claim "Serbia is clearly Serbian so my operations are clearly in line with the resolutions of the Concert" or "Constantinople is clearly Byzantine" etc etc...

Yet the loyal Vicomte then states that "it was wrong to start the hostilities without a clear mandate from the concert" and demands that our operations cease. Can he not see that the French actions, not that we object to them in themselves, undermine the principle which he proposes should be binding on the Emperor and the Czar?

If Frances actions are not 'wrong' and can be interpreted as "in line with the resolutions of the Concert" then so can those of the Emperor and the Czar so they cannot be 'wrong'. However he cannot claim, upon this principle that one action (Frances) is 'right' and then use the same principle to labels the actions of others 'wrong'.

The Austrians only argue to hide their ambitions. How else could they compare Cyprus and Serbia. Hasn't been there several resolutions about Greece. Hasn't the concert agreed that Greek should be liberated and ruled by a king elected by the concert. Has France done anything but to execute this resolution? As france did at Spain, were it gave French blood without any territorial claims?
There is no such resoltion so far for Serbia or any other area on the Balkans.
It seems to me as if Austria is only playing games with the convert to gain time and to get the Balkans as his prey. I think I agree with England if I say that this behavior will bring the concert to an end and will lead to a new war among the members of the concert.

Regarding SH I think we stil have to wait for Prussia. Gentlemen, maybe we should use the time to taste this wine I received today from Bordeaux.

The loyal Vicomte asked for an explanation. We have provided one. Now he pushes the point so let me ask: Was Cyprus the 'Greece' that was liberated? Clearly not or the recent actions there would not have been necessary. Yet on his own authority the King of the French liberated Cyprus, as well as happily acquiring a naval base. Were we consulted? Certainly not. We would have supported the effort had we been informed.

M. le Vicomte states that:"There is no such resoltion so far for Serbia or any other area on the Balkans" . Where is our agreement to Cyprus? Does he have a copy of any agreement with any member of the Concert that can show that this was not a unilateral action?

Now we do no rebuke France for this action: You are now at war with Sultan as are we and we welcome the action in itself for this reason. However the principle he wishes to apply to rebuke the Emperor and the Czar for having breached in regard to a larger conflict (and one which will decide the fate of a French naval base in Cyprus) he has must also then be guilty of having breached.

To put the matter as simply as possible: Did we all agree that Cyprus was Greece, should be 'liberated' and a French naval base established there? Clearly not, for even if all others gave their assent to such a scheme Austria was never consulted.

Did all give their consent to 'liberation' of the Balkans? Again clearly not, though certainly ALL were aware. Something that cannot be said for the Cyprus 'deal'.

We merely point out that the principle he wishes to uphold in the one instance must also apply in the secondary instance; as it is M. de Chateaubriand uses the principle "do as I say and not as my Government does".

I'm dropping out of this. Sorry guys :(.

*sigh* Just once I would like to play one of these games for more than 3 turns without the GM giving up.

If you can find some other people to take Austria etc I will run it and no disrespect to Jan but I would hope to be different as in better at answering pms etc and economics.

If others are interested in keeping this going we can.

SoFarSoGood. If you are interested at becoming the host.I can take over Austria.