|
|
Post by Caroline I on May 7, 2008 18:27:37 GMT 1
The above is an example of correspondence received from the British Government. We feel it raises the following questions, a. What gives you the right to "claim territory"? No other nation has done so, for it is meaningless. Territory is there to be won. b. In what way is the Batavian Republic disreputable? We also wish to make the following statements. a. We deem you enraged only out of greed. b. This was not a momentary lapse of thought, and our intention is to conquer the area shaded grey on the following map for Naples. This small portion of India is to become the first overseas Neapolitan colony. We ask for the support of other nations in this matter, as we feel this correspondence promotes nothing but British greed. We are assured that Britain is a country of higher principle. |
|
|
|
Post by William Pitt (the Younger) on May 7, 2008 18:39:38 GMT 1
Britain here seeks to support these people by giving them help and support within the United Kingdom. The British have started to bring about help to the people in other parts of India already and have therefore looked to proceed to expand that dominion and bring unity and national identity to these people. We are grateful that our allies have agreed to aid us in such a policy, but your nations of the Batavian republic and the Kingdom of Naples, cannot hope to influence people who have little in common with you, and to whom you have little knowledge. The British seek to help people, not like the greed that provokes to nations to expand in a rather distant segment of the world that they have almost certainly never visited.
As for the Batavian Republic, they remain disreputable in the eyes of teh British following personal tlaks with tehm, however we feel no such need to publish such discussions as the Queen seems to think is acceptable in diplomatic negotiations. Perhaps the Queen, who has signed a non-aggression treaty with the British ought to think about what value she actually places in treaties and other nations that she has made promises towards should bear this notice in mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fat'h Ali Shah Qajar on May 7, 2008 18:42:27 GMT 1
Land is there to be claimed but by claiming it you are coming into contact and will enter into battle, not with Britain but with Persia. The land you wish to bring under your Empire has currently got Persian troops heading towards the area.
We also question your conduct as you have brought a private message from Britain, intended to find out your intentions, into discussion in a futile attempt to turn the world against British India.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caroline I on May 7, 2008 19:07:33 GMT 1
Britain here seeks to support these people by giving them help and support within the United Kingdom. The British have started to bring about help to the people in other parts of India already and have therefore looked to proceed to expand that dominion and bring unity and national identity to these people. Perhaps the United Kingdom ought to concentrate on matters closer to home. We are aware the state of Ireland is one of poverty and deprivation. Perhaps the British are overstepping their resources? National identity is not fostered by colonisation, Prime Minister. Any assertion that it is is simply foolish. The Neapolitan State also wish to develop the areas we wish to colonise, for the good of the Indian people. The size of the area reflects what we feel we can develop. Perhaps if Britain hadn't colonised areas so much greater than their own island group, parts of that island group wouldn't live in abject poverty. Italian Merchants have sailed the world over. Do not presume to tell us that you have anything more in common with an Indian tribesman than we do, for it is nonsensical and fools nobody. We too seek to help people, but in doing so we make no shame of profiting ourselves. We stated in our original declaration that we were not being hostile towards British troops in any whatsoever, and this stands. |
|
|
|
Post by Luigi Cocastelli on May 7, 2008 19:12:20 GMT 1
I would ask the British where their definition of disreputable is?
It was the firm belief that after long discussion, and a preliminary treaty, that the British were to relinquish Malta to the Cisalpine Republic, but then, with not a word of warning, we found that he had performed an almost identical treaty with the Neapolitians! Does this count as disreputable, I ask?
The Cisalpine republic supports the Neapolitians in this matter. Let the conquest become a race, if needs must, but land should not be claimed until there is a way of reinforcing said claim.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julian I on May 7, 2008 19:12:36 GMT 1
Ah, because the British, sole colonial power in Asia have much in common with the Aborigines and Indians, and with the Dutch in Sumatra and Malay. While Batavia would not seek to contest the enlightened leadership of the British Raj, we will not be swayed by threats of violence or implications of incompetence. We will, of course, support Queen Caroline fully in this endeavour, and should Persia or Britain enter into war over this we will fight back with full force.
We would, however, ask Britain to clarify to the world exactly why they are better placed to administrate these territories than the Dutch or Neapolitan states - as of now, we only have your word for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fat'h Ali Shah Qajar on May 7, 2008 19:26:41 GMT 1
We stated in our original declaration that we were not being hostile towards British troops in any whatsoever, and this stands. Although you claim this is not a hostile move towards British troops, it is a provocative one, and it is a hostile move against Persian troops in Kerala. |
|
|
|
Post by William Pitt (the Younger) on May 7, 2008 19:27:15 GMT 1
As far as why we find the Batavians disreputable, this is due to their behaviour within private talks, not the absence of any. Whilst the Cisapline Republic questions this, may we remind them that we did contact them to let them no that their offer of a treaty no longer held. We did not leave them in the dark, as they imply.
Now to the state of Ireland. We humbly admit that there is work to be done in Ireland, and that such work is to be carried out in the near future. That work would be committed all the quicker if other countries would remove external threats to other lands we wish to help. AS far the case of national identity. The British India is a dominion and as such has its own unique culture and a personal defense force. We are aware that such national identity cannot be fully developed, but it will begin to ermerge, and the British intend to aid it forming well and being a help not a hinderance to the people. Furthermore, the identity will be all the better for uniting these people with their fellows. We do not claim to be like them, but that as neither of our nations are, we at least know them well from the experiences gained.
To Caroline specifically, we ask you to refrain form such trivial arguments that we are trying to fool anyone, and simply providing remarks of 'nonsensical' to attempt to elaborate your own rather misguided point. To the Batavians, we remind them that we have been capable of governing and safeguarding people in this region of the world a great deal better than they have, and we hope that they shall realise that we are a systematic and thourough govenrment that seeks the best for its people and will aid this nation. Why then are th British best placed to aid India, why simply because our influence expands across the whole world and the trade we bring to this nation will help it develop economically into the future. What is more, we bring with us a culture and a civilisation that is ancient and its lessons can be learnt by these people without them suffering old mistakes. We are placed as a historic naiton, with great economical influence and with an ability to safeguard these people- it si these three qualities that this land needs, and they are to be found most plentfully in the United Kingdom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Luigi Cocastelli on May 7, 2008 19:29:43 GMT 1
As far as why we find the Batavians disreputable, this is due to their behaviour within private talks, not the absence of any. Whilst the Cisapline Republic questions this, may we remind them that we did contact them to let them no that their offer of a treaty no longer held. We did not leave them in the dark, as they imply. That is true, however that was after the second treaty was signed, therefore our point still stands. |
|
|
|
Post by William Pitt (the Younger) on May 7, 2008 19:37:48 GMT 1
It was at the instant of signing that this message was sent, with our apologies for not being able to follow through on the discussions-having found a nation far more like the British establishment which teh Maltese people would be familiar with, and thus a system theywould understand easier.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caroline I on May 7, 2008 19:39:43 GMT 1
Our arguments are not trivial, they are common sense. However, by all means, my Government shall refrain from "arguing" with the British Government; due to their blatant arrogance on this matter. Mr. Pitt is evidently sees himself as the best man to rule North America, Australia, as well as the Indian sub-continent.
Our declaration stands, and if the British truly wish to safeguard their interests they can by all means attempt to thwart our plans. We would deem this as total selfishness, and would retaliate in whatever way we saw fit.
To Persia
We implore you to divert your invasion from Kerala, we do not wish to encroach further into India, however we are adamant to settle this port, for strategic reasons. We are of course willing to negotiate with you, and assure you Naples bares no ill to Persia, but they must grant us this one colony.
|
|
|
|
Post by William Pitt (the Younger) on May 7, 2008 19:46:10 GMT 1
It seems that you have no jsutification to call us selfish when you would come and take this land to make it your colony, not even a dominion. What is more your threats of retaliation to the already planned expansion of Britsih India, would be in direct conflict ot our treaty and we remind you of this before you outwardly destroy a treaty which entrusted our two nations to aid one another, or at least not attack each other. Your aciton therefore threatens the very diplomatic nature of your state that you beckon to use as a means of bartering wiht others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Luigi Cocastelli on May 7, 2008 19:48:49 GMT 1
That would imply you are planning on double crossing the Persians, the only nation who appears to be losing out with this, as the British are looking for the south of the province, the Neapolitians and Batavians to the north.
As an unrelated state, am I alone in finding this worrying that the British do not appear to know where they are invading?
|
|
|
|
Post by William Pitt (the Younger) on May 7, 2008 20:08:10 GMT 1
The British are aware of exactly where they are invading, it is not diffuclt to see from their map. Thier invasion could lead onto vast amount of lands to which the British hold a claim, including the southern tip of Kerala, which is next to the British land. Furthermore, we are to be equally concerned that it is just the Persian land, since we pledged such concerns within our treaty, and do not foresake our word.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fat'h Ali Shah Qajar on May 7, 2008 23:05:11 GMT 1
To PersiaWe implore you to divert your invasion from Kerala, we do not wish to encroach further into India, however we are adamant to settle this port, for strategic reasons. We are of course willing to negotiate with you, and assure you Naples bares no ill to Persia, but they must grant us this one colony. We understand your wishes to expand and form colonies, but why must it be in India. The only reason I can see for choosing such a highly sensitive region is to anger the British, and inadvertently Persia. I do not know whether your initial invasion was an oversight of current claims and current campaigns or whether it was planned to battle with Persia. Our move into Kerala will continue and we implore you to pull out of this war and choose a more suitable region to start off your Colonial Empire. We remind the Queen that although she is not officially declaring war on Britain she is going to be entering war with Persia. A nation which has caused no harm to yours or your brothers in the past. If the Queen cannot find another area to Colonize then she will most likely find out as the British did in recent years that Persia shall no longer be dominated by Colonial powers. |
|
