The Nexerus

World in Revolution: 1861

^ Probably just a minor mistake on Outcast's part.

Pepperm1nts said But honestly, you need to just come clean in OOC :P There is no point trying to argue that you should get to keep Belgium even if you lose the war, or whatever, because I think even you know you probably shouldn't. As you said, the legality just isn't there. The only way you are going to keep Belgium, is through war. Because, as you know, it's the victors who decide what is right and what is wrong.

I've never argued that Belgian independence shouldn't be one of the results of an Allied victory. I'm merely stating the objective fact that the guarantee of such independence would be a rectification of an event that occurred in a prior conflict.

World in Revolution: 1861

Pasta Sentient said
Welp, in that case after the Allies win I'm voting for the Netherlands to belong to the Reestablished Belgium state to Unify the Country. :)

As in removing the Dutch-speaking rulers of an 85% Dutch speaking country, in order to replace them with Francophone ones?

I'm surprised how much of a Francboo Albert Edward has become. Here I was with the misconception that France and Britain were traditional rivals.

World in Revolution: 1861

Pasta Sentient said You are grasping at straws to somehow justify the Netherland's blatant land grab.

I fully agree that it is a blatant land grab, to further the goal unifying the country. It cannot, on the Netherlands' part, be justified on a legal basis. Legality isn't the reason that the reunification occurred, though. If no country ever declared war illegally, the Netherlands never would've existed.

World in Revolution: 1861

Pasta Sentient said That was a different war than this one.

And the Dutch War of Reunification was a different war than the War of the Eighth Coalition.

Pepperm1nts said It's irrelevant now that the Dutch once owned Belgium

How so? The amount of years that have passed between the two wars is irrelevant when deciding whether or not they are the same war.

World in Revolution: 1861

Pasta Sentient said
The Separation of Belgium occurred 30 years prior.

How is that relevant?

World in Revolution: 1861

Pepperm1nts said The way I have see it (and again, I could be missing something), the war began partly because of the annexation of Belgium.

Let's continue down that train of thought, then. If Belgium being reunited with the Netherlands was an event that contributed to the war, then wouldn't the separation of Belgium in the first place also be a contributing factor, since it was the reason that the reunification occurred?

The War of the Eighth Coalition began as a result of resistance to the idea of self-determination and the national will on the part of the Allied powers.

@Pasta: Not a single Prussian entered Belgium until after the Dutch had advanced into Flanders.

Holmes is the hero Spam needs

Azarthes said
Can I be a victim?

your a dumbie head

World in Revolution: 1861

Pasta Sentient said
Nope. Only Prussia and Britain withdrew.

Pasta, the ToC being annulled as a result of a provision in the ToC goes against the spirit of its annulment, doesn't it? I say that, since it is the non-signatories forced to obey the ToC who suffered the most as a result of it, it should be they who decide whether it is to be discarded or not. Being that none of those powers support the ToC, it's discarded by default.

World in Revolution: 1861

The ToC is null and void. I thought all parties had already acknowledged this?

World in Revolution: 1861

Pepperm1nts said
To be fair, the Dutch began hostilities by annexing Belgium.

Nope, that was a separate war that was already concluded with the Treaty of Brussels. When the Dutch marched on Belgium, the war was quick and decisive. No foreign powers (sans Prussia) involved themselves in any capacity, spare for France happening to be the place that Leopold ran off to.

This war began as a result of the Ottoman Empire declaring a blockade on Dutch shores, and moving ships into the North Sea to facilitate such a blockade.