WesWorld

Fine with me. Not my area of the world to worry about.

Heh, Chile the Alfred E. Neuman of wesworld.

"What..... me worry?"

Quoted

Why would France still accept limits lower than Italy?

Because if France wanted higher limits, so would Italy and so it goes on and on.

Quoted

There is evidence of UK and Italy negotiating during the conference.

Correct. No one picked up on it.

Quoted

The government of France requests clarification concerning the specifics of the agreement between the British Empire on the one hand and Iberia and Italy on the other.

Its not only Italy and Iberia, but also the Netherlands and Denmark. What specifics? Both parties had something to trade.

Quoted

Wouldn't this require French input?

Italy negotiated with both France and the UK about the Suez canal. The action was approved by all countries.

Quoted

France is alreay threatened by Iberia/Italy at home, now they have to deal with their presence in the Pacific instead of the more predictable British, this in addition to increased Italian influence in East Africa ajacent to Djibouti. I don't see the security in that and I certainly wouldn't expect them to continue to accept lower limits than Italy with these factor's in mind.

Threatened? Italy wishes nothing but peace and goodwill to all men. Denmark, Iberia and the Netherlands already had a large presence in SEA, moreso than France. Nothing has changed in this regard. See point 1 again.

Quoted

It's the Italian and Iberian concentration in the Med that is of concern to France.

Nothing has changed in the past years. Iberia still has to look after her territories in the Atlantic and Carribean. Italy remains in the Med. as always.

Quoted

However I don't know about the British reaction to this, as historically, the British have sided against whomever might gain a naval advantage on them in any area they wish to power project.

It was mainly a land power thing. To stop one single power from dominating the continent, GB would side with the other lesser powers. This is fairly evident in the Napoleonic wars and again in WWII, which was a mini-version of the Napoleonic wars. However in WW, the balance of power has fundamentally changed.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Why would France still accept limits lower than Italy?

Because if France wanted higher limits, so would Italy and so it goes on and on.

France has more assets to look after than Italy, how does Italy deserve more limits then France, particularily when Italian east africa is a post treaty aquisition?

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

There is evidence of UK and Italy negotiating during the conference.

Correct. No one picked up on it.?

We did, but the annoucement of this news is again dated Feb .....right in the middle of the treaty talks (real time, post treaty talks). This would certainly alter the talks.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Wouldn't this require French input?

Italy negotiated with both France and the UK about the Suez canal. The action was approved by all countries.

When did that happen?

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

France is alreay threatened by Iberia/Italy at home, now they have to deal with their presence in the Pacific instead of the more predictable British, this in addition to increased Italian influence in East Africa ajacent to Djibouti. I don't see the security in that and I certainly wouldn't expect them to continue to accept lower limits than Italy with these factor's in mind.

Threatened? Italy wishes nothing but peace and goodwill to all men. Denmark, Iberia and the Netherlands already had a large presence in SEA, moreso than France. Nothing has changed in this regard. See point 1 again.

Threatened doesn't nessassarily mean outright sabre rattling. Atlantis hasn't threatened Greece, yet Greece feels threatened by FAR and the AANM.

Quoted

France has more assets to look after than Italy, how does Italy deserve more limits then France, particularily when Italian east africa is a post treaty aquisition?

Italy probably doesn't deserve higher limits than France, but Italy has got them and will keep them. There will be no change in this regard.

Quoted

When did that happen?

Over the period of a few months. I began talking to Gravina and Adm K, ages ago then since then moved to to talking to AdmK and RLBH. I think its evident in the fact that the deal went ahead that France agreed to it.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

France has more assets to look after than Italy, how does Italy deserve more limits then France, particularily when Italian east africa is a post treaty aquisition?

Italy probably doesn't deserve higher limits than France, but Italy has got them and will keep them. There will be no change in this regard.

It depends on what the other members think, again this is important news that could have been posted durring the treaty and would indeed have effected the flow of the talks,that seems to be the general consencus so far...

Quoted

Atlantis hasn't threatened Greece, yet Greece feels threatened by FAR and the AANM

Cause if FAR and AANM go to war, Greece is collateral damage.

The problem with Greek-Atlantian relations is that Greece believes that Turkey has Atlantis's ear - I can't imagine where that comes from but perceptions persist.


Re France vs Italy, another legacy problem with no solution. France could always pull out of the treaty rather than some other 'concensus' solution.

GB is facing some strategic realities but everyone seems to be surprised by the results when they have been in similar arangements for years.

Quoted

This is fairly evident in the Napoleonic wars and again in WWII, which was a mini-version of the Napoleonic wars

Wow, never seen WWII described as a 'mini' version of anything ; )


Cheers,

I've changed the date of my 'controversial' announcement to March, so there's a better timescale for figuring things out. I'm working on this having been discussed in camera in Rome, or wherever, for a few months prior to the conference, with the opportunity taken in Copenhagen to tie things up and make an announcement.

I can't see the French problem, either. The Italians and Iberians (AAMN, I think?) are just swapping their Pacific and Indian Ocean responsibilities for the British Mediterranean ones. If anything, it's probably beneficial to French interests, with the "more stable" Royal Navy in the bits that they have less direct control over.

The Suez Canal deal is the one that impacts most on the French, with the remaining aspects being largely a British affair. For storyline purposes, we could suppose that the British agree to put pressure on the French to reduce their share as part of the deal, with the result seen.

In accounting terms, we might actually be looking at an increase in real terms of the the French and British holdings in Suez.

RLBH

"While our relations with the British have always been cordial, the Philippines expresses concern regarding the buildup of any European power in the Asia-Pacific region. We will be discussing this matter with our allies in SATSUMA, and will be considering all options to ensure the continued peace and prosperity of the East Asian sphere."

Quoted

Originally posted by alt_naval

Quoted

Atlantis hasn't threatened Greece, yet Greece feels threatened by FAR and the AANM

Cause if FAR and AANM go to war, Greece is collateral damage.

The problem with Greek-Atlantian relations is that Greece believes that Turkey has Atlantis's ear - I can't imagine where that comes from but perceptions persist.

Oh I understand this point fully, we discussed it at length in PM land and it seems realistic to me.

Quoted

Originally posted by alt_naval
GB is facing some strategic realities but everyone seems to be surprised by the results when they have been in similar arangements for years.

Perhaps you should elaborate on this one, the alliance with Greece to me would seem to solve their issue in the Med., the rest is what I'm having difficulty understanding.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm just trying to understand things here.

Quoted

Originally posted by Swamphen
"While our relations with the British have always been cordial, the Philippines expresses concern regarding the buildup of any European power in the Asia-Pacific region. We will be discussing this matter with our allies in SATSUMA, and will be considering all options to ensure the continued peace and prosperity of the East Asian sphere."

The United Kingdom regrets causing disturbance to the SATSUMA powers. We give our guarantee that there will be no net increase in European forces in the East Asian sphere as a result of the increase in British roles.

It makes for a 3way bloc in the Med. The arrangement with Greece evens the three way balance and lets GB face threats in the Far East which has powerful coalitions and lets face it, vocal opponents. The addition of Greece to the GB Med ballance couldn't counter the dominating position AAMN has over the Western Med and choke points at Gibraltar and Malta. It seems that GB and AAMN recognise mutual interests - but that's not part of my doing.

Cheers,

Well, I also think it´s a "natural" thing in WesWorld that GB and Greece came together given the situation in the Med. It´s their link with Italy (thus AANM in the second row) that causes worldwide concerns.

Quoted

The United Kingdom regrets causing disturbance to the SATSUMA powers. We give our guarantee that there will be no net increase in European forces in the East Asian sphere as a result of the increase in British roles.

"The distrust of the United Kingdom by the SATSUMA partners has deep roots. While the reassurance from the UK is acknowledged, it does not change the fundamental issues that continue to plague relations between the free nations of Asia and those of Europe. India, on behalf of the SATSUMA alliance, invites the UK to meet for discussions aimed at resolving those fundamental issues and creating a lasting peace and friendship between us", stated the Indian ambassador to London, following consultations with the Rana.

Admiral Takis Talknotalotalopoles snorted and read aloud from his copy of the Financial Times.

" it does not change the fundamental issues that continue to plague relations between the free nations of Asia and those of Europe" he repeated for his chief of staff.

"What caste do you think the Ambassador is? asked Talknotalotalopoles.

"I don't know sir, but you'd be 'untouchable' as you're a foreigner", came the reply.

Talknotalotalopoles read on, "invites the UK to meet for discussions aimed at resolving those fundamental issues and creating a lasting peace and friendship between us". the Admiral frowned, "That has to be mutually exclusive". "Sounds like diplo-speak for 'when are you leaving?'".

He turned to the Steward standing by the wall, "Son, What's pink and hard first thing in the morning?"

The Steward froze, not sure how to answer.

"The crossword puzzle" smiled the Admiral as he held up the distinctive pink newspaper.

The FT is a sort of beige colour, definitely not pink. Maybe the international version is different?

Quoted

It´s their link with Italy (thus AANM in the second row) that causes worldwide concerns.

Italy took on a minor stake in the Suez canal. Considering that France, the country that would be in the worst position passed the deal, I really can't see what the problem is.

It adopted its trademark pink paper in 1893 to distinguish it from its rival the Financial News (founded 1884), a move that helped ensure its success.

link

Cheers,