A Hypothetical Situation.

Your nation is furiously engaged in a war against a much larger, stronger power with the aid of a second ally. You are firmly in the right (it was a defensive war, you are a democracy and there is no ongoing oppression bar, of course, the total economic mobilisation going on to fight the total war) but your ally is expansionistic itself. During the war, the ally attacks an innocent, smaller nation. You need this ally to win, but their actions are as utterly brutal as the invader you are fighting.

What do you do?

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

As a citizen? Complain about it on an internet forum.

As a politician? Quit, I obviously have a bigger problem (being a politician) to worry about.

I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -Wanderlustwarrior

I, for one, would welcome our new foreign overlords.

Assuming my ally and I are more or less equal in size, I'd wait till the end of the war with the larger power. In the event of a victory, I'd use the spoils to negotiate for the release of the smaller nation. Worst case scenario, the ally declares war on me. But they spent resources fighting the larger power *and* conquering the smaller nation, so good luck with that.

edited 29th Jul '11 3:51:32 PM by sketch162000

I think sketch has the right idea. (If your ally seriously outclasses the nation that's attacking you, it might even be worthwhile to secretly funnel arms to the innocent nation.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Well, I don't know if my nation would have the power to outright stop the conquest of the smaller nation. But surely we could find some way to minimise human rights violations during the process - whether it's by trying to shame the ally into better practices, or opening refugee camps and donating aid supplies.

edited 29th Jul '11 7:06:46 PM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

Militarily : Nothing, you need your ally, and your citizen is priority. Finish your war first, and make preparation if your ally abandon you or busy fighting its own war.

Diplomatically : Remain Neutral, keep recognizing small nation government, maintain embassy in small nation, and keep complain and document human rights violation even if you can't do anything. make sure if your ally atrocity cause world anger, you did not get dragged on it. allow citizen of small nation to take refuge if they managed to your land.

Not giving a damn about my ally's mistakes. In a dire situation you accept every help you can get.

edited 29th Jul '11 10:03:10 PM by AdeptusAlpharius

I ♥ the VRS

I would do nothing immediately, and certainly not anything with force. However, after the war was over, if I were in a position—i.e. with a stronger or at least equal military—to do so, I would pressure my ally to allow at least some self-government in the region, and I would provide humanitarian aid to them in addition to the rebuilding of the dudes I just fucked up, assuming I have that much money.

I am now known as Flyboy.

'Obtain Safe Passage to conquer the state of Guo'

Use the expansionistic ally to waste his resources or aid in more exhausting ways for him until the original enemy is defeated. Then in your ally's weakened state, topple him to prevent him from expanding into you.

Yes, I would want to do the right thing, but we need numbers to determine what I can effectively do. Suppose the Federation with Power 3 is at war against the Dominion with Power 7 and then our allies Cardassia (power 5) invades Bajor (power 1). What we can do depends on the attitude of the rest of the Galaxy.

Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!

Honestly? Don't do anything. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" completely applies here.

"This thread has gone so far south it's surrounded by nesting penguins. " — Madrugada

I guess throw me in with the "wait till the war is over, then jump them" crowd.

Maybe make my intentions clear and try to barter in the aftermath for the nations freedom first though.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Winning is the priority; use the ally.

That's pretty much the most important deciding factor here.

I would distance my country from the attack and refuse to directly help the ally, but I wouldn't go out of my way to criticize them, too. Simply take a middle ground and remain neutral. Silence is golden in such situations.

The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.

I'd side with the ally. Just cause they're dicks doesn't mean they're not useful.

Fight smart, not fair.

Politely ignore the ally's imperialistic ventures. After all, we've gotta win that war.

edited 30th Jul '11 8:35:00 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Yeah; Win first, worry about human rights later; Prioritize everything to defense in the country, because it is extremely likely that your expansionist ally will target YOU next once they have annexed every other nation it can and it becomes convenient for them to do so. In fact I would seriously recommend attacking first; either immediately or a very short time after the present war; if a pretext is needed, just cite their human rights violation.

Because while human rights are a very important matter, they can only be guaranteed by your nation, the only decent one remaining. And it will be a far worse fate for humanity if you allow your nation to be destroyed because you refuse to compromise now. No, the morally correct thing to do is to prioritize survival; for the greater good for all, you will play Realpolitik now, and sort out the issues later.

Also going with sketch on this one. Use ally to win, after that war is over, then deal with them in whatever manner necessary.

Through the eyes I have known you.

In such a case, I doubt I can afford disregarding foreign help.

"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"

Historically speaking, we willfully ignored their atrocities until the first opponent was taken care of, then waged forty years of a saber-rattling arms race that nearly caused an apocalypse with our mutually occupied ex-enemy territory as a staging ground.

As for my personal answer, encourage even closer cooperation between the two armies, and mix them on the field when possible. Do everything in my power to make sure that when all is said and done with our current opponent, neither side's army will want to fight the other, and hopefully the expansionist regime will be more open to negotiation if support from its military is precarious.

Another option might be to cut off support until the ally ceases hostilities to third parties (essentially a game of chicken), but even if that worked without getting us all killed, it would only engender bitterness and a Cold War in the long term.

edited 31st Jul '11 4:19:54 PM by Pykrete

I must say that scenario reminds me of something

Can't help the smaller country out if you don't exist.

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

I would do nothing until we won the war (taking over the larger nation in the process), then invade the ally for human rights violations and take them over. The smaller nation which got conquered would be occupied by my forces until a peaceful transition can be made (read "after I lose power or die").

This signature is a lie.

Order another dozen bottles of wine.

I spread my wings and I learn how to fly....