POLITICS AND DIPLOMACY

2.1- Politics and Diplomacy
    International and domestic communication forms the core of the World Aflame II game. It is through communication in-game that nations can form alliances, coalitions and make policy statements; through internal politics and communication that a leader can play the give-and-take game to get their own goals accomplished- particularly in multi-player nations.
    As a game, there are certain key standards and concepts that players must abide, in order to keep the game moving forward in a fair and logical manner.

2.1.1- Internal Politics
Most states in the Age of Anxiety have an important level of politics in their domestic legislature that prevents the national leader from exerting absolute power. Nations under an absolute monarchy, autocracy, one-party state or a military junta need not abide these rules, as their forms of government do not allow for internal dissent, or even discussion; but limited or multi-party democracies do have these check-and-balance systems implemented in one form or another.

2.1.1.1- Political Parties
   The most important expression of democracy in a government is in it's tolerance and acceptance of differing beliefs, and the granting of a voice to these opinions in elections, and in votes in a legislature. Each party will have it's own set of goals, dependent on it's socio-political outlook, and these are often very broad, generalized goals that might carry over between like parties in different nations; to very specific goals, unique to that nation. As an example of this, left-aligned parties will often look to increase taxation and the size and power of the central government, in order to lend it's aid to it's poorer citizens; whereas a specific leftist party in Cuba might have the specific goal to squash US investment in Cuba, in order to return control of these Cuban institutions to Cubans.
    In general, there are two axises that political parties might be judged on- their social outlook and their economic views. On the social stage, the extreme in one direction could be rated as pure anarchy, where the rights of the individual are tantamount, and the rights of society as a whole, meaningless. On the opposite end of the spectrum, society as a whole comes first, and individual rights are meaningless and to be suborned completely for the good of the people en masse. In the first example, the extreme might be called liberal; and in the second, authoritarian.
    The second, economic axis is the best known, as the classical Right and Left parties; where the classic extreme Rightists would look to have no government control over business and industry at all, in a lassiez faire style economy; whereas in a classic extreme Left government, all business and industry would be directly controlled by the state.
    In this manner, Stalin's Soviet Union would be well termed an Authoritarian Leftist government; whereas the US in the era of the Rail Barons and Standard Oil might easily be termed a Moderate Rightist one.
    There are other factors and flavors which might influence political parties as well. A good example is religion. Modern-day Islamic fundamentalist movements are dominating much of Middle Eastern government politics, as Catholic movements did in Europe for many centuries. Many political parties in the world are founded around a control of the government on religious principles- if not by the actual religious leaders themselves. Some parties might be driven by special interests, such as the omnipresent 'Agricultural' parties of developing Europe during the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. These parties were (are) dedicated to furthering the interests of the farmers of the regions.
    The Nationalist parties tended to be driven by a desire to unite their own ethnicity under a single government, regardless of what nation those ethnicitys currently reside(d) in. Nationalist governments tend to create natural enemies among other nationalist governments, due to each's own tendency to promote an overtly racist sentiment with regards to their own ethnicity, being superior to all others, and more deserving of the world's resources. A perfect example of this would be Britain's "White Man's Burden" philosophy, as was the United States' 'Manifest Destiny' rhetoric, as was the German drive for Lebensraum in the east.
    Many times, many of these beliefs might all coalesce in a single political party, with very precise goals. It would not be at all unusual for an authoritarian, right-wing, religious, nationalist party to form in a nation such as Germany; whereas France possessed many examples of agricultural parties with strong left-wing, liberal components.     
2.1.1.2- Control Points and Power Points
    Influence among the populace and key internal power blocs is the stock and trade of a nation's political parties. This is manifested in Control Points. Each nation has 100 control points, each representing roughly 1% of the nation's internal political backing. Each party or power bloc possesses a given number of control points, reflecting the backing and influence that party has internally. This fluctuates as the parties succeed or fail at the goals; and as they might anger or alienate the populace; or as they please them, doing things that improve the peoples' lot in life.
    When a national leader attempts to pass an action through his/her legislature, each party casts their CP as their vote on the matter. The side that ends up with the highest CP total, wins. There are exceptions to this, of course, such as the use of Power Points; or certain other actions that might bring about an unexpected swing in the votes.
    Power points describes how much immediate political capital a ruler and his/her party can expend to achieve his/her policy goals within the nation. Typically, this will range between one and ten. In a parliamentary battle over any given policy, those waging the battle may spend PP to attempt to gain a victory for their side. In general terms, spending PP adds 10% temporarily to that coalition's CP with regards to any given particular vote. The opposing side(s) may also use PP to increase their total, in an effort to cancel the PP expenditure of the originating party.
    When a vote is completed, the winning side deducts all the PP they spent from their total; as the markers called in winning the legislative battle are considered paid. Likewise, the losing party keeps the PP they spent- their favors did not come due- and they get to split between the parties, one-half the total expended by the winning party(s).
    For example, if the Nazi, Communist and Catholic parties were the only parties in a hypothetical German state, and they had an even 33 CP each, a vote comes up regarding bussing of pupils to schools in Botswana. This vote is opposed by the Nazis and the Catholics, and supported by the Communists. This means the voting would split normally as 33 in favor, 66 against- a clear defeat for bussing. But say the Communists had 7 PP to spend, and this project was very important to them, so they secretly advise the GM that they'll be spending all 7 PP to ensure the passage of the bill. Thus, the vote is now 103-66; and the bill would pass. But suppose the opponents of the bill were planning on spending 4 PP on defeating the bill- this then moves the vote to 106-103, and the bill is defeated. The losing side- the Communists- keep all 7 of the PP they planned to spend, whereas the Nazis and Catholics lose the 4 PP they spent, with the losses coming from the parties that donated the PP. Additionally, as the PP expended by the Nazis and Catholics would have to have come from unfaithful Communist voters, the Communists gain 1/2 of those points spent- 2 PP- which is added to their total, for a total of 9 PP. 
    Virtually any vote may have PP applied to it, save for a very special few. Votes to actually change the nature or form of a government, or the appointment of a new Prime Minister are immune to the use of PP, though impeachment and Votes of Confidence are not immune. An good example of this principle would be the Nazi Party's dissolution of the Weimer legislature, which was not accomplished by use of PP; rather by blackmail and threat of life to the MPs- a technique that clearly does not fall within the normal function of government over which PP rule.
    The Game Master is the final arbiter as to whether PP may be used on any given vote.  
2.1.1.3- Coalition Building
    There are times when smaller parties may decide to band together to form a single coalition, which can act as a more powerful voting bloc. This was particularly prevalent in states with vast numbers of small parties, such as Weimar Germany. This is done at will by the groups, and the bloc may also be dissolved in the same fashion. This has been done at times to create a government controlled by minority parties with similar goals, or in an effort to completely crush another party or group of parties. The first might have examples such as the Nationalist-Right coalition formed by Ariel Sharon in modern Israel, while an example of the latter might be the anti-Communist movements made by many states in the wake of the successful Bolshevik revolution in Russia, including in the United States, Britain, France and Germany- and unsuccessfully in China.
   The most important feature of coalitions is that they are gathered at the will of the parties that form them, and may be dissolved at any time. Any party may choose to leave the coalition, taking with it a share of the CP and PP as appropriate- though the details may not be known to the party at the time it departs the coalition.
   In short, the building of a coalition can create a new government and appoint the leader of the nation; or it could dissolve it, breaking a government and a regime down to dust, resulting in times of strife, chaos, or even civil war.
   In game terms, when multiple parties belong to a coalition, only one player may speak for the coalition. This is usually the leader of the most potent party in the coalition. The game master does not recommend multiple players in a single coalition, as this greatly reduces the playability for all involved. In the event an existing player has chosen a coalition to lead, s/he has the right of first refusal to allowing another player to play a party in that coalition.
2.1.1.4- Internecine Conflict
   Internal conflict does occur within a nation at times, when filibusters and other tricks of the politicians trade can cause a breakdown in getting anything done in a nation's legislative and executive agenda. A prime example of this would be Poland before it was partitioned by Germany, Austria and Russia in the 1700s, where the rules of their legislature required unanimous agreement on any matter for a bill to be passed. Any member of the legislature could simply shout "I do not wish it!" to negate a motion before the body. Although this example is rather extreme, similar 'denial' tactics can be used to block activity in most legislatures, be that in the form of a filibuster, or simply unbreakable ties in voting, or in a legislature's presiding individuals refusing to set an agenda.
    To reflect this, activity in the legislature may be blocked for the duration of one game month by the expenditure of PP. A party choosing to block the activity spends a PP, and the legislature will remain inactive for one month, or until another party spends a single PP to restart it, breaking the filibuster. The blocking party may again spend PP to reblock activity, which may again be unblocked by another PP, and so on. This can continue for so long as a party remains with PP to undo the action of the previous party, or when the month of blockage expires- whichever comes first.
    Internecine tactics can be useful, particularly to either paralyze a Chief Executive with little constitutional power, or to empower one with a strong degree of the same, who was being obstructed in his/her agenda by an uncooperative legislature. Those who would use these tactics would be cautioned, however, that the public looks poorly on those who prevent the government from conducting business, and even their own constituency might lash back against them, depending on the circumstances.
2.1.1.5- Ratification
   All nations which practice some form of democracy require any and all treaties made by the chief executive and/or his plenipotentiaries, to be ratified by the legislature. This means that the process of negotiating and agreeing to a treaty is subject to what amounts to a veto power from the legislature. In most cases, as the will of the executive is driven by his/her control of the legislature, at times this can differ. An example of this would be the refusal by an isolationist Republican legislature in the United States refusing to ratify the Versailles Treaty and the Covenant of the League of Nations- even though President Woodrow Wilson was instrumental in drafting the first, and the actual key author of the latter, with his Fourteen Points, Four Principles and Five Particulars.
2.1.1.6- Budgetary Wrangles
   Another common battleground between the chief executive and the legislature is over the national budget. The tax rate, appropriations, expropriations and other expenditures made by the national government is set by the chief executive, but as with treaties, needs to be ratified by the legislature. These budget bills are fought over by the partisan warriors, each striving to bring home the biggest pork barrel for their own constituents- and thus earn more CP and PP for future battles.
    Although not historically accurate, for the purpose of the game, each nations budget needs to be set by February for proper disbursement. Thus, a chief executive will want to submit his budget to the legislature in January for the legislature to battle over and, ultimately pass. Along the way, the chief executive and legislature can negotiate and change items as needed, until they settle on a final budget. Once a budget it passed, it is put into the books, and the government will function as needed, sending out cash and goods as appropriate.
    In the event that a budget is not arrived at by February 1, the government starts to suffer problems- cash is not disbursed, public works are held up, construction halted on most projects- unless the chief executive writes an emergency spending order, borrowing money from private lenders at a high interest rate, to keep the key functions running. The executive can halt this at any time, to keep the government from spending too deeply into debt, but in that case, projects again terminate until the budget is properly passed.
   The chief executive and legislature can also pass emergency spending bills during the course of the year as need be, expending funds or goods as necessary for the national interest, but may only do so jointly once a primary budget is passed.     
2.1.1.7- Confidence Votes
   At times, the legislature might become so disillusioned with the chief executive that they feel the need to act to remove him from office. This is known by a number of names, depending on the nation's system, but most parliamentary bodies refer to it as a Vote of Confidence. In this vote, all members of parliament express their belief in the leadership of the executive by voting "yea"- the MP has confidence in the executive; or "nay"- that the MP has no confidence in the executive's leadership.
    This proceeds as any other legislative motion, and if the body votes 'no confidence', the current executive is removed from power, and his/her party is ineligible to place the next executive, though they may still lend their votes to another candidate. Each party (save the one ousted) may propose a candidate, and this is put to a vote, with the leading candidate assuming the role of chief executive.
    The GM readily admits this is a gross oversimplification of the process, and of the placing of a new chief executive, but in interest of simplicity, it shall stand for all nations so affected by legislative bodies.

2.1.2- International Politics and Diplomacy
    International politics is the core of the 'Age of Anxiety' game. Herein is described the manners in which nations may communicate with each other to further their own goals- those of their party, of their nation, and their own personal goals.

2.1.2.1- Lines of Communication
   In order to conduct business with another nation, a leader must have some form of open line of communication. Depending on the nation, and on their own capabilities, that can take a number of different forms; from opened embassies with a nation (the quickest and easiest method of communication), to working through intermediary nations, to having conversations within the structure of the League of Nations, to the most open and dirty communication- through open press releases.
To speak to another nation in-game in any way, a leader must utilize properly one of these forms of communication.
2.1.2.1.1- Embassies
   In order to communicate with another nation directly, the nations must have exchanged ambassadors. Embassies are a form of facility which may only be built in a foreign nation. Speaking through ambassadors is conducted via direct emails between the nations, which must also be carbon copied to the GM. The upside of possessing an embassy in a foreign nation is that it allows the leaders to quickly communicate in a very direct fashion, and allows them to have a more-or-less private consultation. The downside of exchanged embassies is two-fold; each embassy costs 1 cash per round in upkeep; and, more insidiously, embassies can easily function as centers of intrigue and espionage. In fact, possessing an embassy in a foreign nation enables the embassy holder to better utilize intelligence assets in that region, and vastly improves intelligence reports.
    When opening an embassy, the player needs to declare what city it will be in (almost universally, the nation's capital); and a name for the ambassador.  
2.1.2.1.2- Intermediaries
    Another means by which nations can converse is through intermediary nations. By this means, a nation can request of any nation they have an embassy with, for that nation to forward a message on to a third nation; provided the intermediary nation in fact has an embassy opened with the third. The advantage to this method of communication is that the communicating parties can expect a semi-private conversation; but suffer the drawbacks of at least one third-party nation certainly seeing their missives, and that this form of communication will typically be slower, since it needs to go through that third party.
    Note that the intermediary nation is under no compunction save for national honor, to report faithfully what they have been requested to; if at all. This method of communication is handled in game by an exchange of emails to a common party, with whom both conversing nations have exchanged embassies. Only the intermediary nation and the GM are to get the missives and replies, save for the forwarding of the actual mail by the intermediary. Under no circumstances should the nations without a common exchange of ambassadors converse directly through email IC.
2.1.2.1.3- World Press Releases
   A more sure means of communication; though a far from private one, would be for a nation to release in an open letter, or a press release. By this means, a nation can make it's policy known to all the world; as well as make requests and the like. The upshot of this is that the communication is above board, for all to see. On the downside, the communication is above board, for all to see.
    To send messages in this fashion, the player sends an email to the main 'Age of Anxiety' Yahoo! Groups mailing list, in the fashion of a press release, or as the text of a public speech. Please note the difference between these options and an actual news article- the press is at the mercy of the GM, not the players, (with the exception of a government-run newspaper, a la Pravda.) Since the GM is a member of this list, he does not require a cc: on this means of communication.
2.1.2.1.4- The League of Nations
   The League of Nations is a special medium of communication, open only to nations which are members of the League. The League functions as an embassy between all League members, at the cost of maintaining only one embassy. Nations that are members of the League are honor-bound to the terms of its Covenant, but gain the powerful tool of the group's operations and joint action.
    Nations which are members of the League may communicate privately via email as though they possessed an actual embassy with any other League member nation, making sure to cc: the GM on the message. As a further form of communication, League members may also avail themselves of the General Assembly Mailing list, and if a member of the League Council, of that list as well. Addresses for these closed lists may be found on the League of Nations page on this website.
2.1.2.1.5- Conferences
    The final way in which parties may communicate in 'Age of Anxiety' is by means of a pre-arranged conference at a host nation. In this manner, nations send representatives to a pre-arranged location, where they may communicate in an ad hoc League of Nations model, in miniature. At a conference, all communication is sent to each participant, and carbon-copied to the game master. Conferences do come with a cost- the host nation must pay at least a 10 cash flat fee for security; and if wise, should dedicate counterintelligence assets to further coordinate these security measures. Additionally, each participating nation (including the host) must also ante up 1 cash per month, to support the communications and salary costs of the emissaries to the conference. 

2.1.2.2- General Alliances and Pacts
    Once nations have established contact in some manner or another, it is only natural that many should coalesce into alliances for purposes of mutual defense (or mutual aggression), or to seek reassurance of the goodwill of one's neighbors. These are represented in-game by the signing of pacts; of which there are three main types- Military pacts, defensive pacts and non-aggression pacts. Each comes with it's own individual flavor.
    The signing of a pact does not in any way guarantee that the nations signing will behave in the manner prescribed by the pact; though failing to live up to one's obligations will likely result in a loss of credibility and ethics for the offender.
    When establishing a pact, it is not required that the nations draw up an actual document describing the duties and responsibilities of the member nations; though it is highly recommended, for any one of a number of reasons. The best reason is so that mechanisms for including other nations in the pact can be included; along with mechanisms for renewal of the pact, voting procedures and the like. Those who choose to simply accept a 'standard' pact will be at the mercy of the GM as to whether or not they are abiding by the requirements of the pact; rather than having the option to interpret specific clauses.
    Certain types of pacts may be looked down own by one nation's population, should it be directed at a nation that is considered inimical. For example, the long-standing enmity- and post-Great War sentiment of revanche among the French population would preclude any sane Gallic politician form seeking any form of a defense pact with Germany. Similarly, the post-War German population would be furious if any Weimar politician were foolhardy enough to try to tie Germany's cart to France, whom they feel has grossly wronged Germany by dismantling the Second Reich (the Holy Roman Empire being the first) built by Bismarck's work of 'Blood and Iron'.

2.1.2.2.1- Military Pact
    A Military Pact is when where the signing parties agree that if any one pact member goes to war with any other third party nation, that all members of the pact are contractually bound to also wage war on that same third party. Easily the most aggressive of the pacts, military pacts are not entered into lightly, and tend to raise tensions around the contracting parties- especially those with common borders of more than one of the pact members.
    Classic examples of military pacts include the 'Triple Entente' of the Great War, or the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact's secret clause, which called for what amounted to a joint invasion of Poland.
2.1.2.2.2- Defensive Pact
    Defensive pacts are similar to military pacts, save that they are typically invoked only when one of the signatory nations (or one of it's dependencies) is attack by another, third party nation. The signatories are not bound to the aggressive wars of their allies, just the defensive ones. This is not to say that they could not engage in a joint offensive action; just that they are not contractually bound to
    Historical examples of defensive pacts would include NATO, SEATO, and the Warsaw Pact.
2.12.2.3- Non-Aggression Pact
    Non-Aggression pacts are signed between nations who share some common interface, be that a common border, sealanes, lines of communication or suchlike; which guarantees that neither party will initiate any form of aggression against the other. Classic examples of non-aggression pacts would the be public clauses of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and the Covenant agreed to by all members of the League of Nations.
    Note: Nations that have no means of attacking one another (example- Switzerland and Mongolia) cannot sign a Non-Aggression Pact.

2.1.2.3- Breaches of Treaty
    It is possible for a nation to breach it's treaty with another nation, without incurring loss of prestige, credibility, or ethics. This would be by formally, publicly serving notice of the nation's intent to break the treaty, with a reasonable lead-time for the nation(s) with whom the treaty has been breached to make alternate arrangements. In the case of prearranged treaties, it is common practice for the parties to establish clauses that specifically deal with nations departing the treaty, in order to provide that very lead-time.
    Should a nation decide to abrogate a treaty in such a way that, in the opinion of the GM, it does not leave their treaty mates 'in the lurch', or is through a pre-established procedure that both parties had agreed to, there is likely to be little- if any- loss of prestige, credibility or ethics.
    If, on the other hand, a nation unilaterally dissolves their portion of a treaty in such a way as to leave their treaty mates 'holding the bag', there are likely to be some consequences to this on the international stage. The same holds true, to a lesser degree, for a nation that simply fails to uphold, in whole or in part, their end of a treaty.

2.1.2.4- Declarations of War
   The default state of affairs between two nations is peace. When at peace, nations may trade and exchange goods, ambassadors and the like. In short, the situation is normal. The time may come, however, that a nation may decide the time has come for a reckoning with the other nation, for one reason or another. At this time, that nation may decide to take up arms against their foe, in an effort to seize their opponents land, resources, colonies, industrial centers, strategic waterways and the like. In fact, since time immemorial, this has been the cause for virtually every war mankind has ever fought.
    A nation which has the intent to be forthright and honest in it's dealings will declare war before actually waging it- typically a few days before the start of hostilities. This is in order to give the opponent a fair and honorable chance to defend itself. This level of honor has been typical among nations, and was the standard modus operandi until the middle Twentieth Century, with examples like Germany's Operation Barbarossa assault on the Soviet Union, Japan's sneak attack on the United States at Pearl Harbor, and the completely undeclared wars in Korea, Afghanistan and Viet Nam. Nations which violated these gentlemen's conventions often found themselves considered hopelessly corrupt and barbaric by their contemporaries. Few would risk that level of alienation that they would experience; even fewer regimes lasted to commit such an act a second time.

2.1.2.4.1- Casus Belli
   A nation that declares and wages war on its neighbors for no reason other than a pure and raw desire for expansion will be marked as a ruthless one by its contemporaries. In order to do so, and remain 'in the right' in the eyes of the international community would require that nation to have a legitimate casus belli- a reason for war.
    This is easier in some cases than in others. A nation that is attacked first by another other nation, for any reason, is automatically considered to have a casus belli, regardless of any treaties that may be in effect to the contrary. (Example- the attack on Pearl Harbor provided the United States with a casus belli; as did the launch of Operation Barbarossa grant casus belli to the USSR against Germany).  Likewise, agreement to a pact may grant casus belli to a nation, depending on the situation. For example, the German invasion of Poland in 1939 (Case White), granted the United Kingdom and France casus belli against Germany, even though it did not involve British or French troops or territory, since France and Britain had guaranteed Poland's borders by means of a number of treaties, forming a mutual defense pact with Poland. Thus, the attack on Poland was tantamount to an attack on Britain and France. In a similar manner, the American declaration of war against Japan provided Germany with casus belli against the United States; as Japan, Italy and Germany were bound by a military pact; and the US formally engaging Japan in a war meant that Germany and Italy were contractually bound to do the same towards the United States. It is through a series of entangling alliances of this sort that the Great War was expanded to include all of Europe.
    Wars are not the only events which may bring about a casus belli. In truth, almost any aggressive action which causes a significant loss of life, material or security for a nation might provide casus belli. Examples would include an act of sabotage on a nation's facilities, violating an agreement that keeps troops from a nation's borders (akin to the German remilitarization of the Rhineland, hence threatening France), atrocious acts against a nation's ethnic kin (for example, if modern day state(s) were to begin a new Holocaust, this would provide casus belli to Israel), or other acts of war that do not necessarily cause a direct loss of life or material; such as blockading a nation's coastline and ports, or threatening guaranteed neutral shipping rights. Likewise, whenever a nation endures a paramilitary uprising in their own nation, leading to a civil war; both sides are considered to have casus belli.
    If casus belli can be established, a nation may wage a war against another, likely with little or no effect on their ethics and aggression ratings. The casus belli need not be true, only believed by the world at large; though if found out, this can cause a geometric-scaled backlash. For example, in 1939, Germany attempted to convince the world that Polish commandos had launched a small-scale attack into Germany, and used this feeble excuse to launch a full-scale invasion of western Poland. In fact, the attack was staged by SS troops; and few in the world believed this claimed casus belli, believing (rightfully) that it was a ruse, and the actual cause of the German invasion of Poland was purely aimed at reuniting Germany-proper with East Prussia, separated for twenty years by the Danzig Corridor.
    By the same token, if a nation can 'prove' in the international arena, that a nation's casus belli is a farce or a ruse, it may be discarded and treated as false by the world community- even if the casus belli is legitimate. An example might be that very Danzig Corridor argument. In effect, territory that was populated by a clear majority of ethnic Germans, that was historically part of the German Confederation dating back centuries, was stripped from Germany by the vengeful Allied Powers in the Treaty of Versailles, and given to Poland, to grant the Polish state sea access at Danzig/Gdansk. An argument could certainly be made that this gave Germany casus belli to seize that land in Pomerania that formed the Danzig Corridor. Perhaps, if Germany had stopped there, rating than seizing the land all the way up to the Bug River, where the Soviets annexed everything from that point east, the German government might have been able to convince the world of this casus belli. The dismemberment of the Sudeten Czechoslovakian lands were established as just that by German diplomats at the Munich Conference a few years earlier. Of course, as Hitler's dreams lay with conquest and revenge, not righteousness, that did not happen- and no casus belli established with the world, which saw the attack on Poland as unprovoked aggression.     
2.1.2.4.2- 'Natural' Enemies
   Many nations possess 'natural' enemies. Those are defined as those nations that are believed to in some way threaten each other. This may take the form of a pressing military threat (a la France and Germany), a political threat (the US and USSR during the Cold War), an economic threat (such as the fear after the invasion of Kuwait, that Iraq controlled- and threatened- too great an amount of the world's oil production), or similar issues. Most often, a level of conflict has likely existed between those nations in the past, and both sides will likely feel that there is a great deal of wrongs to be righted. Often, the territory and placement of a nation will bring those nations into conflict as natural enemies. For example, prior to the Great War, the possession of the Italian Irridenta (the Dalmatian Coast) by the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary made Italy and Austria-Hungary natural enemies; and this later continued when the victorious allies failed to grant the Irridenta to Italy at the end of the war as promised, though the territory was given complete independence as Albania and portions of Yugoslavia. Germany's desire to retake the Danzig Corridor made Poland Germany's natural enemy, just as Germany's seizure of Alsace and Lorraine from France in 1873 continued it's enmity as natural enemies with Paris.
    While there are no specific restrictions placed on natural enemies, national leaders will find that their people are ill-willing to accept any kind of congenial action with regards to their hated foe, preferring to oppose them at every turn. In this manner, neither France nor Germany would be too pleased about giving up and part of Alsace-Lorraine, and would likely oppose any 'sharing' agreement of the lands; just as would Poland and Germany with regards to the Danzig Corridor. Likewise, signing of any kind of defense treaty between the two nations would likely cause a significant uproar in both nations- even a non-aggression pact would be frowned on. The seeds of hatred are easy to sow, and very difficult to eradicate.
    None of this is to say that all natural enemies shall remain so, nor that new natural enemies may not arise. Typically, a single war will not cause this kind of raw hatred to arise- but it does help.  
2.1.2.4.3- Undeclared Wars
    Undeclared wars are a very special case. In certain instances, a nation may take military action against another without ever formally declaring war. An example of this would be the 1922 French occupation of the Rhineland, in order to attempt to force Germany to make good on it's Versailles-dictated war debts, despite the collapsed German economy. Typically speaking, this will cause a tremendous loss of face to the aggressor- with or without a casus belli- though in some cases, it may be the only reasonable way for a nation to accomplish it's goals.
    An example of this effect would be the Korean War. The United Nations (railroaded by the US) waged a de facto, undeclared war against North Korea, when, in response to the North Korean invasion of South Korea and it's eventual repulse, decided to continue to push towards Pyongyang across the 38th Parallel, rather than stopping at the defense of the South. This action, in the end, caused Chinese troops to come to the defense of the North, crossing the Yalu River and driving the UN forces more or less back to the start point- the 38th Parallel.
    A rare example of a time when an undeclared war would be considered 'appropriate' by a population would be in the circumstance that a government considered legitimate by the world at large- and that own nation's population- is overthrown by a minority seizing power. Often this type of coup will be put down by the nation's own majority, but in some cases it may not, and foreign powers opt to intervene. An example of this would be the intervention of the Allies in an effort to support the White (pro-monarchist) forces in Russia following the October Revolution, against the Red Soviet forces who had seized control of the government. What actually doomed the Allied and White resistance was the fact that the majority of the military sided with the Reds, despite the fact that the population at large did not much care; simply exchanging one authoritarian dictatorship for another; and the fact that the Allied efforts were, for the most part, rather half-hearted.

2.1.3- Shattered Governments
    Part of the nature of governments is that they will see opposition not only internally, but externally as well. In some cases, the opponents may seize the reigns of power militarily or politically. When this happens, there are a limited number of options available to the deposed government, all of which require some sort of support or another. Additionally, direct opposition would also likely take one of those same forms of operation while trying to seize power.

2.1.3.1- Governments-in-Exile
   Governments-in-exile are those which have been forced from power, almost exclusively by means of some form of military or popular uprising, whose international allies agree to continue to recognize as the sole legitimate authority. In this form of resistance, the government-in-exile is removed from the nation and set up with a temporary capital elsewhere- almost exclusively in the territory of the ally. France's government in exile, headed by Free French Leader Charles de Gaulle would be a perfect example of this, as would Poland's from the same era. Both governments in exile were established in England.
   Governments in exile rarely have any direct power in their homelands, as the force that deposed them would usually have asserted control over the entire region in absence of the former regime or other authority. This means that a such a government will have no organic income or construction capacity, unless the exiles have set up shop in a former colony or suchlike. In order to finance operations, the government in exile will need to convince other nations to donate to their cause, or in very rare circumstances, might be able to finance some on the private cash and goods owned and accessible to their own members.
    More often than not, governments in exile's primary goal is to retake their nation, and- in truth- there is little else available to them.
2.1.3.2- Fifth Columns
   A term coined during the Spanish Civil War, a fifth column typically refers to a group that exists within an existing government, that has the intent to actually overthrow that government and establish one of their own liking. At least some elements of the fifth column must exist within the current government, though additional support for the column might come from anywhere, domestic or international. In essence, a fifth column is very much a cooperative action between a government-to-be and espionage assets. Fifth Columns tend to differ from a legitimate opposition party in that they will typically seek to change the entire form of government of the nation, not just which party sits in the leadership role at the given time. Very good arguments could be made that the numerous Communist movements in Europe and the United States following the Great War were de facto fifth columns, as was the Nazi Party in Weimer Germany; in that all of these parties operated within the bounds of the government, until they were ready and prepared to seize power, and in doing so, change the very nature of the government itself.
2.1.3.3- Open Rebellion
    Open rebellion occurs when one faction of a nation takes up arms against the legitimate government, in an attempt to topple the government from power- or sometimes, in an effort to section the nation between them. In this case, typically both sides in the conflict have the support of access to military forces, and using them, access to some of the industry, manufacturing, refining and agricultural capacity of the nation. As the lines of battle flux and move, the actual controls might vary significantly, and pockets of both forces might develop locally, depending on the support of the populace of various regions. At times, the lines of battle might be drawn geographically, such as during the American Civil War, or might be purely political in nature, with control dependent on where the forces are located, as in the Chinese Warlords period, and later, during the Chinese Civil War.
    Support for government and rebel forces can come from internal sources, and from external allies. During the Cold War, both communist and capitalist ideologies were able to find support from the Western Bloc and the Communist Bloc, depending on which ideology was supported by the conflicting forces. Examples would include Soviet support of Castro's Communist rebels in Cuba while the US supported the government forces (roles which were reversed during the failed 'Bay of Pigs' invasion a few years later, when Castro's forces were in power); Chinese and Soviet support of Ho Chi Minh's NVA and Viet Cong forces during the Viet Nam War, while the US supported the military dictatorship of the South; and so on.