NationStates Jolt Archive

Choose one of the following to answer, or all, if you so desire.

These are loosely based on history.

Situation one- You are the leader of the last unconquered people in the Americas. The white skinned people give you a message of peace, if you surrender. You know from previous experience, other tribes have surrendered peacefully and have been wiped out. Do you:

A) Take the peace offering, in hopes of saving your people.
B) Mount an offensive against their superior arms, which will likely lead to the death of your people anyways.
C)Fight a small battle to allow your people to escape to a new place, where you can regather to attack again.

Situation two- You are the second born, and favorite son to the king of a powerful European nation(during the medieval era). Your father dies due to illness, and your older, very popular brother ascends the throne. You are very jealous of his position, and wish to take the throne for yourself. You have the backing of the general of the nation's military. However, your brother is supported by the masses. Do you:
A) Kill your brother in his sleep, and take the throne with use of the military.
B) Start a civil war against your brother, and hope to win the throne that way
C) Wait until he has an 'accidental' death of your brother, and take the throne then.
D) Forget about taking the throne all together.

Situation three- You are a general in the crumbling Nazi regime. It is close to the end of the war. However, with your keen sense of command, you spot a weak part in the allied advancers. Attacking this spot might break the allies in two, and allowing for the reich to live on a bit longer, plus boost troop moral. You radio it in to Hitler himself, and he says don't move, just defend. If you move, you will be killed on his orders. So, do you:

A) Ignore his threat, and attack anyways.
B) Obey your leader, and keep on the defensive
C) Abandon the military completely, with hopes of keeping your life altogether.

Again, these are not based on any specific situation in history, but based loosely on historical events. Choose your answers wisely, and explain why.

Situation One - A

Situation Two - D

Situation Three - C

I've probably chose the three wrong ones, but hey, I'm a pacifist...

Op(era)tion Tribes: retreat to space and nuke the enemy from orbit. *nod*

Or....

1. C - because guerrilla forces have always been a pain in the arse for big nations and I'm vindictive that way.

2. D - sod it, why be king when you can be prince? All the benefits of royalty with none of the power problems :p

3. C - I quite like the sound of South America...

Option C to all.

1. C - There is a hope of surviving.
2. D - It's not my right and why would I kill my brother?
3. C - Hitler had a mental disorder, how do you expect me to trust anything he says?

1) C. A is a certain death, B is a glorious death, so I'll go with C to try and give the tribe a chance to survive.

2) C. A quiet assassination and peaceful transfer of power seems to be preferable to war with the king or a dead king's supporters. Giving up is a dangerous option, since you don't know if your brother views you as a threat or not. Best to be sure and be king.

3) C. All of the choices are suicidal, but C gives a better chance for survival than A or B.

1.

C)
Best method of survival in my view in the face of superior fire power and numbers. If the enemy does defeat you it will most likely be more costly for them and lengthy. i.e vietnam, when the russians invaded afghanistan etc

2.
C) hopefully the death won't be treated as suspicious and those bloody commoners won't revolt.

3.
A) death before dishonour and all that and who gives a shit about what that guy with one ball and parkinsons says.

1) C, possibly without attacking. A and B both lead to a greater chance of death.

2) D, B is just silly and won't work, A and C are too malicious for my tastes. Besides, the throne isn't nearly as interesting as being a prince with few responsibilities.

3) C, staying leads to death, attacking leads to death, leaving leads to life for probably more than just me.

Option C to all.

I'll agree with this.

1. C
2. A. Popular revolts were largely ineffective in the medieval world.
3. C. Seems the best option given that, as a high ranking Nazi official, defection would ensure my life and property.

Choose one of the following to answer, or all, if you so desire.

These are loosely based on history.

Situation one- You are the leader of the last unconquered people in the Americas. The white skinned people give you a message of peace, if you surrender. You know from previous experience, other tribes have surrendered peacefully and have been wiped out. Do you:

A) Take the peace offering, in hopes of saving your people.
B) Mount an offensive against their superior arms, which will likely lead to the death of your people anyways.
C)Fight a small battle to allow your people to escape to a new place, where you can regather to attack again.

Situation two- You are the second born, and favorite son to the king of a powerful European nation(during the medieval era). Your father dies due to illness, and your older, very popular brother ascends the throne. You are very jealous of his position, and wish to take the throne for yourself. You have the backing of the general of the nation's military. However, your brother is supported by the masses. Do you:
A) Kill your brother in his sleep, and take the throne with use of the military.
B) Start a civil war against your brother, and hope to win the throne that way
C) Wait until he has an 'accidental' death of your brother, and take the throne then.
D) Forget about taking the throne all together.

Situation three- You are a general in the crumbling Nazi regime. It is close to the end of the war. However, with your keen sense of command, you spot a weak part in the allied advancers. Attacking this spot might break the allies in two, and allowing for the reich to live on a bit longer, plus boost troop moral. You radio it in to Hitler himself, and he says don't move, just defend. If you move, you will be killed on his orders. So, do you:

A) Ignore his threat, and attack anyways.
B) Obey your leader, and keep on the defensive
C) Abandon the military completely, with hopes of keeping your life altogether.

Again, these are not based on any specific situation in history, but based loosely on historical events. Choose your answers wisely, and explain why.

Situation 1: B

Situation 2: Probably C

Situation 3: A (I would hope I would never be a general under the Nazi regime, however)

2. D - sod it, why be king when you can be prince? All the benefits of royalty with none of the power problems :p

lol same thinking to that

Situation 1:
C. I wouldn't trust the encroaching peoples to keep thier word. Nor am I so proud that I would "gloriously" sacrifice my people in a battle I couldn't hope to win. I'd fight a small campaign to buy enough time for my people to move on to other lands.

Situation 2:
D. Power is overrated. I would just be content with living a fine life as the King's brother, without responsibility. A good many perks, with none of the stress of being a leader.

Situation 3:

B. I'd stay right where I was and continue to defend my position. I don't want to have an SS officer shoot me in the back of the head for disobeying Hitler. I also don't believe it would be fair on my men to simply desert them. If at all possible though, I'd attempt to surrender to Allied forces when I was inevitably overrun.

1 D. I don't acknowledge the peace offer as valid, since it is my land they are looking to take. I continue to live on my land and, if they attack us, we defend, but we do not look to attack them or escape. Because I know the hills and valleys of my land better than they do, I probably do fairly well leading them to untenable real estate for their attacks (such as enclosed valleys and box canyons) where I can cut them off from the rear and leave them to stew in their own juices with as little loss of life on either side as I can manage. All the while I petition the UN to get these people to go away and leave us alone, and mount a massive advertising campaign to alert the rest of the world as to how we are being mistreated while trying to just live our lives in peace.

2 E. I support my brother, he is the rightful king. With my military backing and his popular support, we unite the people of our country and live long and peaceful lives. If my brother has no children, my children inherit the throne. If he has children, I raise mine to understand that the good of the country is much more important than who gets to wear the fancy hat during parades, and they know that they should support the rightful heir as well.

3 D. As you may have guessed from answers one and two, I am not a military type person... so I would never have risen to the level of general. If I were a general, I would immediately give all my troops the rest of their lives off, and send them home... so I have no troops left with which to answer this question.

2 E. I support my brother, he is the rightful king. With my military backing and his popular support, we unite the people of our country and live long and peaceful lives. If my brother has no children, my children inherit the throne. If he has children, I raise mine to understand that the good of the country is much more important than who gets to wear the fancy hat during parades, and they know that they should support the rightful heir as well.



Like hell you'd have lasted more than a year as medieval politician.

Like hell you'd have lasted more than a year as medieval politician.

Are you kidding? You are the king, your brother controls the military of your country and he wants to SUPPORT you. What are the chances you are gonna say "Nope, kill HIM off, I want somebody in charge of the military who wants to put a knife in my back!"?

As a strong supporter of a popular king with the military in support of me, I am probably the safest person around! And if I teach my children to behave honorably, I have no fear of one of them trying to off me either.

1.-C I know (based on history) the outcome, but still, youve gotta take a chance. Who knows, i might be thinking of a diffrent scenario.
2.-D. While popular revolutions might often not work, they have a tendancy to cost me a lot of money. Ill take royalty and being an advisor rather than being the king any day (Must be my mentality-all the power with none of the blame)
3. E-take my chances and shoot Hitler personally EDIT: After finding like minded generals, id do away with all these unreilable bombs, demand a meeting with him, and shoot him in the head with my luger. I take control of the government, initiate the plan that Rommel was going to, and surrender to the allies.

Are you kidding? You are the king, your brother controls the military of your country and he wants to SUPPORT you. What are the chances you are gonna say "Nope, kill HIM off, I want somebody in charge of the military who wants to put a knife in my back!"?

As a strong supporter of a popular king with the military in support of me, I am probably the safest person around! And if I teach my children to behave honorably, I have no fear of one of them trying to off me either.

Simply beacuse one's brother supports one at one point does not necessarily mean he will continue to do so. In light of this, and the capricious nature of medieval politics, any prudent monarch would dispose of the brother and disloyal military leaders and appoint his own men.

Simply beacuse one's brother supports one at one point does not necessarily mean he will continue to do so. In light of this, and the capricious nature of medieval politics, any prudent monarch would dispose of the brother and disloyal military leaders and appoint his own men.

Who is disloyal? The military listens to me, I support my brother, and so the military supports my brother.

By your reasoning, anyone born the sibling to a potential monarch should run for the hills as soon as they are able to walk. A king has to trust SOMEBODY, and I am a good person to trust because I am being completely supportive, working with my brother for the good of the country, and helping organize the military to his uses. If my brother is going to be such a fool as to throw away that sort of a resource, he may not deserve to be king. However, I am assuming he IS a good king, and since he is the rightful king, I am actively working on his behalf for the good of the country. As to appointing his own men, I AM one of his own men... (well, I am a woman, but for the purposes of this discussion... :p )

Who is disloyal? The military listens to me, I support my brother, and so the military supports my brother.

By your reasoning, anyone born the sibling to a potential monarch should run for the hills as soon as they are able to walk. A king has to trust SOMEBODY, and I am a good person to trust because I am being completely supportive, working with my brother for the good of the country, and helping organize the military to his uses. If my brother is going to be such a fool as to throw away that sort of a resource, he may not deserve to be king. However, I am assuming he IS a good king, and since he is the rightful king, I am actively working on his behalf for the good of the country. As to appointing his own men, I AM one of his own men... (well, I am a woman, but for the purposes of this discussion... :p )

No. You are a person with a strong claim to the throne and the backing of the military. If I was that king, I would definitly kill the younger brother and those military officers that support him.

Now, as for my answers... C, C, and C. You're going to die either way, but you get to live longer. Invite over a foreign delegate from a nation you don't like, kill the king in his sleep, and frame the foreigner. Pfft. By that time in the war everyone knows they're dead. So, make a deal with the Allies and fool your Nazis into attacking other Nazis, making a breach in the defences and quickly ending the war.

1: C, but if things go south, screw it and try for B.

2: D, power has never held all that much atraction to me, I'm content to command the army.

3: C: surrender to the allies, in exchange for not being tried as a war criminal, and the same deal for my men. If the allies demand unconditional, go out in a blaze of glory.

C for all.

1) Recent history shows how well insurgency can work. Maybe I'd have decent luck if I was inventive enough. It seems to be the best chance, in any case.

2) I want to be king. That throne should be MINE! So, bro's just gotta go. And this is how to get rid of him without the nasty civil war part.

3) If he won't see the sense in my plan, then to heck with him. Argentina, here I come.

Situation I - C

Situation II - C

Situation III - C

Who is disloyal? The military listens to me, I support my brother, and so the military supports my brother.

By your reasoning, anyone born the sibling to a potential monarch should run for the hills as soon as they are able to walk. A king has to trust SOMEBODY, and I am a good person to trust because I am being completely supportive, working with my brother for the good of the country, and helping organize the military to his uses. If my brother is going to be such a fool as to throw away that sort of a resource, he may not deserve to be king. However, I am assuming he IS a good king, and since he is the rightful king, I am actively working on his behalf for the good of the country. As to appointing his own men, I AM one of his own men... (well, I am a woman, but for the purposes of this discussion... :p )

You haven't actually studied the middle ages in any great detail have you? I would venture not, given the above tripe. In which case, I bid you goodnight; I'll not demean myself by applying weak modern sensibilities to a wholly more ruthless, politicised, individualistic paradigm.

Choose one of the following to answer, or all, if you so desire.

These are loosely based on history.

Situation one- You are the leader of the last unconquered people in the Americas. The white skinned people give you a message of peace, if you surrender. You know from previous experience, other tribes have surrendered peacefully and have been wiped out. Do you:

A) Take the peace offering, in hopes of saving your people.
B) Mount an offensive against their superior arms, which will likely lead to the death of your people anyways.
C)Fight a small battle to allow your people to escape to a new place, where you can regather to attack again.

C...presuming there's somewhere else to go.

If not, scatter without engaging and start a campaign of violence in urban areas.

Situation two- You are the second born, and favorite son to the king of a powerful European nation(during the medieval era). Your father dies due to illness, and your older, very popular brother ascends the throne. You are very jealous of his position, and wish to take the throne for yourself. You have the backing of the general of the nation's military. However, your brother is supported by the masses.

Do you:
A) Kill your brother in his sleep, and take the throne with use of the military.
B) Start a civil war against your brother, and hope to win the throne that way
C) Wait until he has an 'accidental' death of your brother, and take the throne then.
D) Forget about taking the throne all together.

B...I have the support of the military, and will win a civil war. Even if my brother is popular, the timeframe in question makes civilian uprisings a nusicance, not a true threat. The war will also give me a free hand to identify and eliminate my brothers supporters.

Situation three- You are a general in the crumbling Nazi regime. It is close to the end of the war. However, with your keen sense of command, you spot a weak part in the allied advancers. Attacking this spot might break the allies in two, and allowing for the reich to live on a bit longer, plus boost troop moral. You radio it in to Hitler himself, and he says don't move, just defend. If you move, you will be killed on his orders. So, do you:

A) Ignore his threat, and attack anyways.
B) Obey your leader, and keep on the defensive
C) Abandon the military completely, with hopes of keeping your life altogether.

D. Defect to the Western Allies, give them as much info as I can, ask for asylum in New Zealand.

1. C. The closest thing to an orderly retreat to a secure area where we can build up our strength and harass the enemy.

2. D. I didn't want to be queen anyway.

3. A. Attack. It's better to ask forgiveness than permission, besides, with the time I buy, I can take a small force, take out Hitler and put myself in charge.

c,d and c. there is such a thing as common sense and something about it being the better part of valor!

(although anti-social darwinism's approach to number three IS intreguing. i wouldn't want what the german riche had by then already become. i'm not so sure even someone who could have pulled that off would have been able to both hold a lid on the resault and reverse the other disasters hitler's arbitraryness had already percipitated. if something like that could have happened BEFORE his 'human euthinasia project, and some of his other insanity, THEN something good perhapse, and certaily a VERY different world, could and likely would, have come of it).

in short, i can't really place myself in situation two or three, i don't see any point to power other then being able to do good with it. in situation one though, and yes, all of these ARE historicly realistic, well i couldn't and wouldn't abondon the responsibility my people had laid on me, and it seems that no mater what we did, it would be a century or more before the survivors stopped being harrassed. there would certainly be those among us, who, knowing this, would want to go out, however hopeless it might be to do so, in a blaze of glory. far be it from me to attempt to stop them. the would go there seperate ways, choosing their own suicidal leaders, possibly engauging in distraction offencives to cover the relatively, if only for the time being, safe retreat, of the main body of the rest of us. and hopefully in directions far enough away from wherever we hoped to be able to go.

=^^=
.../\...

I gotta say I disagree with anyone who puts C for the first question.

You're the last native people on the continent - what are you going to do? Run away and try and breed a big enough army to take on the conquerors? Spend the rest of your dwindling days on the run?

I know from playing various games that when I'm in an obviously losing position I go all-out attack - fine, it may be suicidal but at least the game is over soon enough, I can't stand long-drawn out attrition through weaselly running away.

Occasionally I've managed to sneak an unlikely win through this.

For question 2, Since I'm apparently insanely jealous I suspect I will poison my brother - I doubt he'd trust me with my loyalty from the army nor have enjoyed my father's favored status - it's a question of 'who strikes first' here.

For question 3, I'd just be really pissed to be in that situation so I think I'd surrender to the allies.

Situation two- You are the second born, and favorite son to the king of a powerful European nation(during the medieval era). Your father dies due to illness, and your older, very popular brother ascends the throne. You are very jealous of his position, and wish to take the throne for yourself. You have the backing of the general of the nation's military. However, your brother is supported by the masses. Do you:
A) Kill your brother in his sleep, and take the throne with use of the military.
B) Start a civil war against your brother, and hope to win the throne that way
C) Wait until he has an 'accidental' death of your brother, and take the throne then.
D) Forget about taking the throne all together.

Normally I would forget about the throne altogether and support my brother by joining the clergy. We mostly hear the tales of backstabbing relatives, but usually familly looks out for eachother, and this was no less true for royals in the middle ages.

However in this scenario there exists already a lot of friction and a pending civil war... I cannot trust my brother in this situation because I am a threat and I want the throne to myself...

I take option B, I depend on the military to defeat my brother... However, I will be visible during the struggle, when I am certain to win, I’ll have the disloyal general murdered….

Thereafter the people will not like me, that is tough. Though, they may not like me, I will not interfere with their daily lives and will only act as a tyrant to those that continue to oppose me. They may fear and despise me, which both will lessen with time. They will not, however, hate me; so with a little luck I’ll be fine.

ps dictators live terrible lives full of fear of betrayal... So being fine depends on your viewpoint...

C, D and C.
What does that tell me now?

A, C, and C

A because even though my people might resent it, in the end they will at least end up being alive and rather well off from casino ownership.

C, because A and B are too messy, and organizing a poisoning would be simple enough in an era without forensics. I assume with control of the military I have some sort of influence over the palace guard, so getting to my brother's chicken leg isnt that unlikely. Afterwards, I would ship what relatives I have left all over the kingdom and give them their own portions of the kings power. Of course, all of their military advisers will know who they report to in the end.

Finally, C, because I like life. I hear Argentina is nice... or perhaps Egypt.

You haven't actually studied the middle ages in any great detail have you? I would venture not, given the above tripe. In which case, I bid you goodnight; I'll not demean myself by applying weak modern sensibilities to a wholly more ruthless, politicised, individualistic paradigm.

Sigh.

Just as well I suppose. If you are forced to devolve into the insulting, you probably have nothing interesting to contribute to the discussion anyway.

1 C)Fight a small battle to allow your people to escape to a new place, where you can regather to attack again.

holding out with a realistic number of people might buy us the time needed for the enemy to decide to not kill us all when we accept a peace treaty. sometimes a valiant fight can cause the enemy to build up enough respect for you to decide to let you live (as long as you dont massacre a bunch of them at one time). in the end i will accept peace so that my people will live on.


2 B) Start a civil war against your brother, and hope to win the throne that way

is the middle ages. might makes right. with the military backing ME he wont have a chance to win. fuck the masses, they have no power.


3 B) Obey your leader, and keep on the defensive

i didnt get this far by not obeying orders. if i thought that the move would give us a great chance to WIN, i might disobey for the greater good and accept execution afterwards. but this will only extend the time. so i will do what i have always done and obey hitler.

Situation 1-C. Situation 2-A. Situation 3-C.

I gotta say I disagree with anyone who puts C for the first question.

You're the last native people on the continent - what are you going to do? Run away and try and breed a big enough army to take on the conquerors? Spend the rest of your dwindling days on the run?

I know from playing various games that when I'm in an obviously losing position I go all-out attack - fine, it may be suicidal but at least the game is over soon enough, I can't stand long-drawn out attrition through weaselly running away.


well, for example, the apaches in the southwest completely outclassed the american army that was after them. they knew the terrain. they had hideouts in the mountains. they fought in a guerilla style that didnt give the americans the chance to kill many at one time.

the americans were wearing wool uniforms in the 100+ degree heat, dragging cannons through the desert, getting lost in the mountains. the kind of fighting they were trained for was useless in the terrain they found themselves in.

over time, the apaches came to understand that their superiority only went so far. every man they lost was a big loss, every loss on the american side was insignificant. they surrendered so that their women and children could live.

i dont know if it would have been OK to have surrendered when given the first chance to do so. it wasnt in the apache character to do that anyway. their fight helped them to keep their pride when living under the american thumb.

C
D
B

C to all questions. 'nuff said.

Ooh, I loved these books when I was twelve!
I take the magic sword and attack the evil king with it!
(Rolls a three)
Aaaaiiiiieeee!
(Dies)

well, for example, the apaches in the southwest completely outclassed the american army that was after them. they knew the terrain. they had hideouts in the mountains. they fought in a guerilla style that didnt give the americans the chance to kill many at one time.

the americans were wearing wool uniforms in the 100+ degree heat, dragging cannons through the desert, getting lost in the mountains. the kind of fighting they were trained for was useless in the terrain they found themselves in.

over time, the apaches came to understand that their superiority only went so far. every man they lost was a big loss, every loss on the american side was insignificant. they surrendered so that their women and children could live.

i dont know if it would have been OK to have surrendered when given the first chance to do so. it wasnt in the apache character to do that anyway. their fight helped them to keep their pride when living under the american thumb.

Interesting and thanks.

I guess I had my own little vision of the scenario, which was that my back was against the wall. Given your thoughts I might change my view on this overall but, knowing myself, I quite like desperate positions and getting out of them through sheer bravado in gaming - I suppose I wouldn't make a great leader :)

Choose one of the following to answer, or all, if you so desire.

These are loosely based on history.

Situation one- You are the leader of the last unconquered people in the Americas. The white skinned people give you a message of peace, if you surrender. You know from previous experience, other tribes have surrendered peacefully and have been wiped out. Do you:

A) Take the peace offering, in hopes of saving your people.
B) Mount an offensive against their superior arms, which will likely lead to the death of your people anyways.
C)Fight a small battle to allow your people to escape to a new place, where you can regather to attack again.

A. B is useless, and C is just a way to do B later on. A is the only one with a possibility of survival. (A very, very small one.)

Situation two- You are the second born, and favorite son to the king of a powerful European nation(during the medieval era). Your father dies due to illness, and your older, very popular brother ascends the throne. You are very jealous of his position, and wish to take the throne for yourself. You have the backing of the general of the nation's military. However, your brother is supported by the masses. Do you:
A) Kill your brother in his sleep, and take the throne with use of the military.
B) Start a civil war against your brother, and hope to win the throne that way
C) Wait until he has an 'accidental' death of your brother, and take the throne then.
D) Forget about taking the throne all together.

I like how most people are all " I don't want the throne!" when it's clearly stipulated in the hypothetical situation that you DO.

Anyway, I think A, B, or C are all valid options. In fact with A, the military is hardly needed - I'm the second eldest male and if my brother dies, the throne is rightfully mine anyway, no? Of course it's better to arrange the death so it's "accidental" to make the transition of power smoother. B is possible however, I'd say the least possible since it depends on the ability of a medieval army to achieve victory (a chancy proposition, especially if the opponent has a large amount of popular support from which to draw soldiers).

D is out of the question. I want that throne.

Situation three- You are a general in the crumbling Nazi regime. It is close to the end of the war. However, with your keen sense of command, you spot a weak part in the allied advancers. Attacking this spot might break the allies in two, and allowing for the reich to live on a bit longer, plus boost troop moral. You radio it in to Hitler himself, and he says don't move, just defend. If you move, you will be killed on his orders. So, do you:

A) Ignore his threat, and attack anyways.
B) Obey your leader, and keep on the defensive
C) Abandon the military completely, with hopes of keeping your life altogether.

I think i choose C. The war is lost no matter if this small victory is achieved or not. I have to look out for my future beyond the war, and maybe the allies will take mercy on me that Hitler would not have,.

1. A/C - I would put up a small offence, as to distract the advancing US Army from the other villagers who are fleeing to the north or south, depending on whether Canada or Mexico is closer.

2. C - "An accidental" death which propells you to the leader of your country would provide you with the least bloodshed, with out being completely obvious that you are responsible.

3. A - If you could exploit the weakness in the Allies advance, they could be easily routed from France, which would leave only the eastern front to worry about. If one could rout the enemy from the Western front, paronoia or not, Hitler would probably not have you killed, unless his staff felt threatened by your genius, which you would be given the option to commit suicide instead of being executed.

Choose one of the following to answer, or all, if you so desire.

These are loosely based on history.

Situation one- You are the leader of the last unconquered people in the Americas. The white skinned people give you a message of peace, if you surrender. You know from previous experience, other tribes have surrendered peacefully and have been wiped out. Do you:

A) Take the peace offering, in hopes of saving your people.
B) Mount an offensive against their superior arms, which will likely lead to the death of your people anyways.
C)Fight a small battle to allow your people to escape to a new place, where you can regather to attack again. I'd go option A, be as co-operative as possible so as to land the sweetest deal, then plot to take them out from the inside out (with the eventual hope of using their technology and infrastructure to pick up the pieces and defend against the inevitable whiteskin response).

Situation two- You are the second born, and favorite son to the king of a powerful European nation(during the medieval era). Your father dies due to illness, and your older, very popular brother ascends the throne. You are very jealous of his position, and wish to take the throne for yourself. You have the backing of the general of the nation's military. However, your brother is supported by the masses. Do you:
A) Kill your brother in his sleep, and take the throne with use of the military.
B) Start a civil war against your brother, and hope to win the throne that way
C) Wait until he has an 'accidental' death of your brother, and take the throne then.
D) Forget about taking the throne all together. Option A, blame the death on an assassin from an unpopular country or demographic, then declare popular war against said perpetrator to avenge his death.

Situation three- You are a general in the crumbling Nazi regime. It is close to the end of the war. However, with your keen sense of command, you spot a weak part in the allied advancers. Attacking this spot might break the allies in two, and allowing for the reich to live on a bit longer, plus boost troop moral. You radio it in to Hitler himself, and he says don't move, just defend. If you move, you will be killed on his orders. So, do you:

A) Ignore his threat, and attack anyways.
B) Obey your leader, and keep on the defensive
C) Abandon the military completely, with hopes of keeping your life altogether.

Again, these are not based on any specific situation in history, but based loosely on historical events. Choose your answers wisely, and explain why. Normally, option A, after first organising a successful assassination of Hitler. However, given the grander scenario, the fall of the Nazis was at that point inevitable. Thus I would most likely stop eating, shave my head, and hide out in one of the basements of a frontier concentration camp awaiting 'rescue'. Make up some BS about being a 'favoured prisoner' that they treated well in return for running the furnace system or doing the plumbing.

Situation one- You are the leader of the last unconquered people in the Americas. The white skinned people give you a message of peace, if you surrender. You know from previous experience, other tribes have surrendered peacefully and have been wiped out. Do you:

A) Take the peace offering, in hopes of saving your people.
B) Mount an offensive against their superior arms, which will likely lead to the death of your people anyways.
C)Fight a small battle to allow your people to escape to a new place, where you can regather to attack again.
I choose D) Fortify and dig in. defend and protect.

Situation two- You are the second born, and favorite son to the king of a powerful European nation(during the medieval era). Your father dies due to illness, and your older, very popular brother ascends the throne. You are very jealous of his position, and wish to take the throne for yourself. You have the backing of the general of the nation's military. However, your brother is supported by the masses. Do you:
A) Kill your brother in his sleep, and take the throne with use of the military.
B) Start a civil war against your brother, and hope to win the throne that way
C) Wait until he has an 'accidental' death of your brother, and take the throne then.
D) Forget about taking the throne all together.
E) Support the new king to the throne and work to become his Most Trusted Advisor. thus being the true power behind the throne.

Situation three- You are a general in the crumbling Nazi regime. It is close to the end of the war. However, with your keen sense of command, you spot a weak part in the allied advancers. Attacking this spot might break the allies in two, and allowing for the reich to live on a bit longer, plus boost troop moral. You radio it in to Hitler himself, and he says don't move, just defend. If you move, you will be killed on his orders. So, do you:

A) Ignore his threat, and attack anyways.
B) Obey your leader, and keep on the defensive
C) Abandon the military completely, with hopes of keeping your life altogether.
B) but do so literally.

radio the allies and tell them. "We will defend ourselves. but as long as you don't attack us, we'll not initiate any violence."

thus I am following my commander's orders. I am not moving and just defending. not attacking, not moving.

1. C

2. C or D, more likely C. Graciously accepting the throne after the tragic death of my brother would help sway the peasantry.

3. C. This has Battle of the Bulge written all over it. A mildly successful attack, but eventually repelled. Though, considering Hitler and his leadership, defecting when the Allies reached my position would be a better option.

Situation one- You are the leader of the last unconquered people in the Americas. The white skinned people give you a message of peace, if you surrender. You know from previous experience, other tribes have surrendered peacefully and have been wiped out. Do you:

C)Fight a small battle to allow your people to escape to a new place, where you can regather to attack again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation two- You are the second born, and favorite son to the king of a powerful European nation(during the medieval era). Your father dies due to illness, and your older, very popular brother ascends the throne. You are very jealous of his position, and wish to take the throne for yourself. You have the backing of the general of the nation's military. However, your brother is supported by the masses. Do you:

C) Wait until he has an 'accidental' death of your brother, and take the throne then.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation three- You are a general in the crumbling Nazi regime. It is close to the end of the war. However, with your keen sense of command, you spot a weak part in the allied advancers. Attacking this spot might break the allies in two, and allowing for the reich to live on a bit longer, plus boost troop moral. You radio it in to Hitler himself, and he says don't move, just defend. If you move, you will be killed on his orders. So, do you:

C) Abandon the military completely, with hopes of keeping your life altogether.

(1) Choice C. Surrending is pointless if they're likely to wipe us out, and a hopeless battle is pointless if they'll DEFINITELY wipe us out.
(2) Have dad's death investigated to make sure that it really IS illness and not poison. If it's poison, make sure the public finds out, but if it's natural, get him a nice (and barren >:) wife.
(3) Defect, explain weak point to allies -- serves hitler right for threatening me!

1. C
2. C
3. A

1c
2d
3c