WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian

Quoted

I'm just saying we've all gotten worked up about Satsuma for 20 years but they haven't really done anything but bluff and bluster. The threat just isn't there and they would need a reason to start trouble now.

Oh im not arguing with you, I just found it funny your ally was getting all excited that FAR was apparently saying "this area off limits" "that area off limits" and thinking half of Europe is out to get him, yet you are telling SATSUMA "bring it on, I dare you!" Seems GNUK has conflicting voices!

Heh, and why wouldn't an alliance have different opinions?

No, that wasn't saying that I thought everyone in Europe was out to get Germany (they had their chance, and did only a partial job of it), that was a response to what Brock had said that he later clarified only applied to a small area of the world.

I know of two potential storylines being bandied around by players that are potential works in progress so some good has come from this thread.

I reckon 2-3 mini conflicts in WW would make things interesting and force the alliances to keep things local. For a start 5-6 different countries could find themselves in constrasting wars, perhaps even on different sides with each other. That would be interesting!

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian

Quoted

I'm just saying we've all gotten worked up about Satsuma for 20 years but they haven't really done anything but bluff and bluster. The threat just isn't there and they would need a reason to start trouble now.

Oh im not arguing with you, I just found it funny your ally was getting all excited that FAR was apparently saying "this area off limits" "that area off limits" and thinking half of Europe is out to get him, yet you are telling SATSUMA "bring it on, I dare you!" Seems GNUK has conflicting voices!

Heh, and why wouldn't an alliance have different opinions?

No, that wasn't saying that I thought everyone in Europe was out to get Germany (they had their chance, and did only a partial job of it), that was a response to what Brock had said that he later clarified only applied to a small area of the world.

Acctually no, it just had to be clarified to you. We did mention several times what the likely flare up would be to result in AEGIS and FAR members fighting alongside one another. You just assumed it would be ALL of FAR and Iberia, which then morphed into a loonie rant about how FAR would attack Quebec and such but lets not dwell on that one shall we?

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I'm just saying we've all gotten worked up about Satsuma for 20 years but they haven't really done anything but bluff and bluster. The threat just isn't there and they would need a reason to start trouble now.

The problem is that isn't apparent IC. Certainly from the Dutch PoV. It's 1939, so the block pulled out of Cleito En Mass 4 years prior? That looks like a strong unified alliance ditching the arms limitation treaty. This was followed by the Paracels bit, with China and India denying France's authority and some renewal of rhetoric. Chinese Marines and Paratroops have been built up since sabre-rattling over San Hianan Do started. Since then we've seen India demonstrate multi-division amphib lift capacity and Chinese amphibious forces deployed to the Indian ocean.

Then there are the various wars, which certainly make the alliance look like they will prey on the weak. The campaign in the Phillipines to reinstall a pro-Satsuma govt. The wars in Arabia and Persia-India.

So the existence of the "Satsuma threat" should IC be very relevant.

Quoted

I know of two potential storylines being bandied around by players that are potential works in progress so some good has come from this thread.

I reckon 2-3 mini conflicts in WW would make things interesting and force the alliances to keep things local. For a start 5-6 different countries could find themselves in constrasting wars, perhaps even on different sides with each other. That would be interesting!

Which would be interesting.

Thats a fairly accurate assessment Kirk. Is SATSUMA a grave threat? No, not to any of the other large alliances (besides AEGIS perhaps), but to lesser nations it is and we've seen stuff like the TBA, WASP and MERIF formed to prevent their expansion west.

With India and Persia out of SATSUMA the threat dynamic changes for those alliances/treatys but slightly for the better it would seem. The SATSUMA split also gives AEGIS a better footing as well.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I'm just saying we've all gotten worked up about Satsuma for 20 years but they haven't really done anything but bluff and bluster. The threat just isn't there and they would need a reason to start trouble now.

The problem is that isn't apparent IC. Certainly from the Dutch PoV. It's 1939, so the block pulled out of Cleito En Mass 4 years prior? That looks like a strong unified alliance ditching the arms limitation treaty. This was followed by the Paracels bit, with China and India denying France's authority and some renewal of rhetoric. Chinese Marines and Paratroops have been built up since sabre-rattling over San Hianan Do started. Since then we've seen India demonstrate multi-division amphib lift capacity and Chinese amphibious forces deployed to the Indian ocean.

Then there are the various wars, which certainly make the alliance look like they will prey on the weak. The campaign in the Phillipines to reinstall a pro-Satsuma govt. The wars in Arabia and Persia-India.

So the existence of the "Satsuma threat" should IC be very relevant.

Agreed. And, if I were speaking as a paranoid European colonialist, even if SATSUMA completely fell apart and disbanded, I'd still be paranoid of tricks.

The Chinese and Indians fighting each other, as has been hinted at, indicates that India at least is intent on going it's own way for the foreseeable future, but Japan, China, and the Philippines together are still a formidable force to be reckoned with in SE Asia.

Heh. As I said to Tex once, "If China and Japan got into a deathmatch, then I'll consider believing SATSUMA's dead." (But then, I'm inherently suspicious.)

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

......

This was followed by the Paracels bit, with China and India denying France's authority and some renewal of rhetoric.


.......

NO !!! That's not completely correct !!! China has guaranteed France, that the status-quo of the Paracel Islands will still remain.

A first discussion will take place AFTER the independence of French-Indochine. Because the claim belongs to Indochine and not to France.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador


NO !!! That's not completely correct !!! China has guaranteed France, that the status-quo of the Paracel Islands will still remain.

A first discussion will take place AFTER the independence of French-Indochine. Because the claim belongs to Indochine and not to France.

Actually it's completely correct from the Dutch point of view.

The treaty recognised France as in charge of Indochina's affairs.

That India and China refused to let France deal with the Paracels on behalf of Indochina was simply yet another treaty (after Clieto) they broke and "proves" that even with ink on the page, they are unwilling to respect the authority of European nations. It certainly goes to reinforce the point that SATSUMA can't be trusted and is still hostile to Europeans.

From the discussions of the time, I realize China/India may not see it that way...but thats the reality from the Dutch POV.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk

Quoted

Originally posted by parador


NO !!! That's not completely correct !!! China has guaranteed France, that the status-quo of the Paracel Islands will still remain.

A first discussion will take place AFTER the independence of French-Indochine. Because the claim belongs to Indochine and not to France.

Actually it's completely correct from the Dutch point of view.

The treaty recognised France as in charge of Indochina's affairs.

That India and China refused to let France deal with the Paracels on behalf of Indochina was simply yet another treaty (after Clieto) they broke and "proves" that even with ink on the page, they are unwilling to respect the authority of European nations. It certainly goes to reinforce the point that SATSUMA can't be trusted and is still hostile to Europeans.

From the discussions of the time, I realize China/India may not see it that way...but thats the reality from the Dutch POV.

The Dutch aren't the only ones who share this point of view. International precedent would state quite firmly that the claim *DOES* belong to France, at least with regard to administrative decisions, as well as the Indochina Protocol itself:

Quoted

SATSUMA commits to recognize and respect ... the role of France, subject to the outcome of the plebiscite cited in 1D above, as the source of political and military authority within Indochina.

Emphasis mine.

That means that China (and the rest of SATSUMA) has recognized France's right to argue the Indochinese claim to the Paracels, per a treaty that they signed.

All of You are starting to make me paranoid.
My tiny country cannot even begin too think of playing with the big boys. I may have a decent power for the region but if I have Two first rate powers on my borders and third just beyond the sea...

Inferiority complex incoming.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

That means that China (and the rest of SATSUMA) has recognized France's right to argue the Indochinese claim to the Paracels, per a treaty that they signed.

That's the reason why China guarantee the Status-Quo !!!

Maybe I have expressed myself a little unclear ...

I meant, China will discuss the Paracels-issue with an independent Indochine and not with France, because China has the fear ,that France will set it's interests above those of the people of Indochina.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
I meant, China will discuss the Paracels-issue with an independent Indochine and not with France, because China has the fear ,that France will set it's interests above those of the people of Indochina.

Um.

...thank you for proving my point light-years better than I ever could.

Your Honour, I rest my case.

Is there a small ironic "undertone" in your statement ???

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
I hate the ironic "undertone" of your statement

You can hate it all you wish, but it's true: you just made my point for me.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

That means that China (and the rest of SATSUMA) has recognized France's right to argue the Indochinese claim to the Paracels, per a treaty that they signed.

That's the reason why China guarantee the Status-Quo !!!

Maybe I have expressed myself a little unclear ...

I meant, China will discuss the Paracels-issue with an independent Indochine and not with France, because China has the fear ,that France will set it's interests above those of the people of Indochina.

Right!... so China is changing its tune!

Quoted

SATSUMA commits to recognize and respect ... the role of France, subject to the outcome of the plebiscite cited in 1D above, as the source of political and military authority within Indochina.

Is China now throwing the treaty out then?

All the Chinese talk was OOC. Of course the Chinese government is abiding by all the parts of the Indochinese agreement. They are just expressing an unofficial opinion.

A Red Mexico creates a problem that would end with the end of Nato. Atlantis of late is pulling more into accomodation with Iberia, the United States will be nervous by such occuring close to their borders and Great Britain has been more preocupied by other parts of the world of late.

IMO it will be economic suicide for Mexico. The failures of communists movements in WW should serve as an example but if Argentina goes Socialist, why not Mexico also?

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
All the Chinese talk was OOC. Of course the Chinese government is abiding by all the parts of the Indochinese agreement. They are just expressing an unofficial opinion.

Begging your pardon, but I disagree. China's refusal to negotiate the Paracels and Spratlys dispute with France is precisely the IC problem. The treaty not only gives France the ability to negotiate on Indochina's behalf, but it also gives the French the option to invest an Indochinese negotiator to represent them. It says so right in the Indochina Protocol - and the Protocol was set up to allow the resolution of situations like this.

As Kaiser Kirk said, China is disdaining France's authority to make decisions for Indochina (as expressed in the Indochina Protocol). That was precisely the point I wished to make earlier: China won't recognize France's authority to negotiate. The OOC statements completely confirmed that statement's truth.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
All the Chinese talk was OOC. Of course the Chinese government is abiding by all the parts of the Indochinese agreement. They are just expressing an unofficial opinion.

Begging your pardon, but I disagree. China's refusal to negotiate the Paracels and Spratlys dispute with France is precisely the IC problem. The treaty not only gives France the ability to negotiate on Indochina's behalf, but it also gives the French the option to invest an Indochinese negotiator to represent them. It says so right in the Indochina Protocol - and the Protocol was set up to allow the resolution of situations like this.

As Kaiser Kirk said, China is disdaining France's authority to make decisions for Indochina (as expressed in the Indochina Protocol). That was precisely the point I wished to make earlier: China won't recognize France's authority to negotiate. The OOC statements completely confirmed that statement's truth.

China was just eliminating Piracy and other problems in the region. Their continued stay is to ensure piracy don't return to the region. The official response would be that China abide by the Indochina protocol but prefers to discuss issue till 1950. And is not disdain, is just the Chinese government being worried by the lack of response by France to the piracy and later problems.

And some events already occured on the islands so let not start a shooting war in 1936. You know what i'm trying to say.

I notice that none of the nations involved have put a signature underneath the Indochina Protocol...


Also, SATSUMA could twist things a bit with the "subject to the outcome of the plebiscite cited in 1D above" bit (which I think is what China's doing).