WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
What is very clear is that sales of warships to a belligerent during time of war would be a violation of a nation's neutrality. And persistent un-neutral behavior could draw the ire of the international community, depending on the particulars.

Lend-Lease in WWII?

International law is a very malleable concept depending on what country is doing what.

International law may be malleable but where there is written law on the subject it is not. And by a strict interpretation of International Law, the Destroyer-Bases deal, and later Lend-Lease, were egregious violations. No outcry was raised by the international community because of the greater threat of Nazi domination. That does not change the fact that it was a clear violation of the letter of the Hague Convention. Post hoc arguments are irrelevant to the issue, and the victor always wins the right to record the history.

However, only a belligerent has the right to protest such violations; neither has yet to do so. As each as arranged such sales they may not choose to do so. As a member of the international community Germany has noted what it deems to be violations of neutrality by several nations and will conform its future actions to what it has observed.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Realistically what nation is going to give up trade with the largest market in Asia for very long in goods that it knows it can get away with? As long as no weapons or other items as classified in the 1909 Treaty are willingly supplied then I see no issue. After all does a pretty minor regional scrap (much smaller than the SA War) really pose a serious enough issue for the European powers to overlook hard cash for morals?

Exactly my point of view.

The SAE is not interested in participating in the fighting for either side and they do not really care about the outcome of the war, but business is business. If one belligerent gets angry because the SAE is delivering something useful to the other side, they will simply get the offer to buy the same or similar goods for the same price. Your friendly SAE weapon dealer will always be willing to help out. ;o)

In fact, I´m surprised this discussion got started over some "raw materials", although it is pretty interesting. It should also be noted, often it is qutie different what politicians and diplomats say in public, from a morale high ground and/or to please their audience, and what governments really do behind closed doors. Especially so in old times, where news took some time to spread and where the nations could more easily get away with their actions. In fact, a small news piece in a chinese news paper could easily be overlooked by those not directly involved - something to be kept in mind should some consider IC reactions.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
The SAE is not interested in participating in the fighting for either side and they do not really care about the outcome of the war, but business is business. If one belligerent gets angry because the SAE is delivering something useful to the other side, they will simply get the offer to buy the same or similar goods for the same price. Your friendly SAE weapon dealer will always be willing to help out. ;o)

French IC response: Please refrain from dealing in weapons and contraband to my warring neighbors until after the war ends. If the SAE insists on providing contraband or arms to either of the warring parties, France shall be forced to make adjustments to their international relationship with the SAE, and France will support any motion of international censure against unscrupulously un-neutral behavior, whether it is levied by China or the Philippines.

"Sir this is the latest batch of intelligence reports from the Far East Combined Bureau in Hong Kong."
"Very well."
"This report has a newspaper clipping from one of their agents in China, its from the Bejing Newspaper November 11th."
"November 11th, its January 10th today! What the hell are they playing at?"
"Well Sir it takes time for such information to get overland."
"What does it say?"
"That the South African Empire is exporting raw materials to China escorted in convoy by RSAN ships."
"What raw materials?"
"Doesn't say Sir."
"Hmmm, what does Brother Lilley of naval intelligence think?"
"Well Sir some RSAN escort vessels were sighted in the Indian Ocean about that time, they've never been sighted anywhere else in the South China Sea and our Dutch contacts at the Far East Combined Bureau have confirmed such ships never left DEI territoral waters."
"What's in the ships? Whatever it was is there by now anyway."
"An agent covering the ports on the East Coast of the SAE hasn't made any formal indentifcations of either likely ships nor cargoes. The Navy have identified several SAE-flagged merchants in the South China Sea but most seem to be heading home."
"Hmmmm."
"Shall we shadow them Sir?"
"No. No point now. There's nothing we can do."
"One more point Sir, the French and the Germans have been pretty vocal on the issue."
"Perhaps they know more than we do?"
"Perhaps Sir but what can be done about it if the SAE is supplying contraband?"
"That decision rests with far higher heads than mine. If the Navy isn't overly bothered out-there then who can force merchants of any nation to stop and be searched? No thankfully that's not my decision to make. I think its time for my tea now, keep me informed on this situation, hopefully with some more concrete information to go on next time."
"Yes Sir."

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
The SAE is not interested in participating in the fighting for either side and they do not really care about the outcome of the war, but business is business. If one belligerent gets angry because the SAE is delivering something useful to the other side, they will simply get the offer to buy the same or similar goods for the same price. Your friendly SAE weapon dealer will always be willing to help out. ;o)

French IC response: Please refrain from dealing in weapons and contraband to my warring neighbors until after the war ends. If the SAE insists on providing contraband or arms to either of the warring parties, France shall be forced to make adjustments to their international relationship with the SAE, and France will support any motion of international censure against unscrupulously un-neutral behavior, whether it is levied by China or the Philippines.

You cannot answer IC to an OOC discussion and information. So I will ignore your post above.

In fact, would I take this as a serious IC reaction to a short news bit in a Chinese paper speaking of eaw materials, the SAE would take this as clear breech of diplomatic habits. France is in no position to demand anything from the SAE.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I doubt this kind of indirectly Dutch help would have justified the seizure of any Dutch territory.

That depends on the audience the Brazilians would have wished to appeal to, and the spin put on the Dutch actions by the Brazilians. Brazil would not have had to justify its actions to the Dutch, nor to the SAE nor even those neutrals favourable to both powers. Such a course would not get very far anyhow. It is with those neutrals that view both powers unfavourably that Brazil would have been appealing to.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
The SAE is not interested in participating in the fighting for either side and they do not really care about the outcome of the war, but business is business. If one belligerent gets angry because the SAE is delivering something useful to the other side, they will simply get the offer to buy the same or similar goods for the same price. Your friendly SAE weapon dealer will always be willing to help out. ;o)

French IC response: Please refrain from dealing in weapons and contraband to my warring neighbors until after the war ends. If the SAE insists on providing contraband or arms to either of the warring parties, France shall be forced to make adjustments to their international relationship with the SAE, and France will support any motion of international censure against unscrupulously un-neutral behavior, whether it is levied by China or the Philippines.

You cannot answer IC to an OOC discussion and information. So I will ignore your post above.

In fact, would I take this as a serious IC reaction to a short news bit in a Chinese paper speaking of eaw materials, the SAE would take this as clear breech of diplomatic habits. France is in no position to demand anything from the SAE.

I was in a hurry trying to leave town when I wrote that, so I didn't get my point across well: I was still speaking OOC on IC matters. I was trying to inform you out-of-character of the French response that will need to happen in-character if the SAE does what you suggested they would. As you said earlier, "Well, we all have to live with the consequences of our actions", and I am merely informing you what some of the possible consequences might be to the actions you suggested. No threats or demands were intended.

Okay, gotcha.

Two more questions when discussion sales at wartimes.

1.) What about sales that date back prior to the war but delivery date is planned for when the fighting has already begun? If the contract is made in peace times, the payment is done - must the good be delivered? The buyer has a right to get his property, right?

2.) What if a deal is made in war times but delivery date is set for a date the conflict can be expected to have ended?

Your point of view?

My answers;

1) Well you could be sneaky and requistion the stuff for your own use and pay compensation later on after the war (or not depending on your sneakiness).
Or store it somewhere and hope whatever it is keeps in good condition until delivery can be arranged.
Or sell it to someone else who has the readies and can take the stuff off your hands while you run to the bank.

2) No problems then, the deal might not even be public knowledge anyway. The only problem is if the drags on longer than you expected.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Two more questions when discussion sales at wartimes.

1.) What about sales that date back prior to the war but delivery date is planned for when the fighting has already begun? If the contract is made in peace times, the payment is done - must the good be delivered? The buyer has a right to get his property, right?

The Hague Convention expressly forbids delivery of a warship by a neutral nation to a belligerent during time of war, no matter when the sales contract was signed. The obligation of the neutral is quite clear.

Quoted

2.) What if a deal is made in war times but delivery date is set for a date the conflict can be expected to have ended?

By the same token, a strict interpretation of the Hague Convention would not prohibit the sale of a warship to a belligerent during wartime so long as the vessel was sequestered by the neutral power and delivered following conclusion of hostilities.

What do you refer to by "conclusion of hostilities"? A ceasefire or peace treaty?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
What do you refer to by "conclusion of hostilities"? A ceasefire or peace treaty?

Conclusion of hostilities refers to the surrender of one of the belligerents or the a peace treaty.

Cessation of hostilities refers to the imposition of a cease fire agreement or an armistice between the belligerents, and is preparatory to conclusion of a general peace.

Thus the OTL First World War saw active hostilities cease in November 1918, but peace was not formally achieved until the conclusion of the Treaty of Verseilles in 1919.

I expected this. According to this, OTL Germany is still at war with most of the world as there never was a peace treaty - "just" a ceasefire.

So are all arms sales to and from Germany illegal today? Could any of the former allied nations randomly pick a German merchant and check it for contraband?

Until very recently the Isles of Scilly were still offically at war with the Netherlands!

I think Bruce is being correct and legal, however governments don't tend to think in correct and legal terms. They do whatever is neccessary at the time, whether that means hiding their actions or ignoring the actions of others. WW2 saw most nations turn a blind eye to Allied actions - it depends on your favoured outcome as to how blind you are. Some wars are just too small that they get easily overlooked. In WW terms the current China Vs Phillippines war is big news and both nations are under close watch. But then Italy, Mexico, Atlantis, Nordmark, Japan and the Dutch all made shipments of arms, fuel, volunteer pilots, aircraft, ships etc etc throughout the war whilst being supposedly neutral and not one nation seriously challenged all of these breaches (the carriers being the only one I remember being frowned upon). That said few nations were bothered with the outcome, most felt SAE would win anyway and didn't mind the small guys getting some stuff to even the balance a little and even fewer had geopolitical or economic reasons to stay away or to influence others.

Huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundr…ve_Years%27_War

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I expected this. According to this, OTL Germany is still at war with most of the world as there never was a peace treaty - "just" a ceasefire.

So are all arms sales to and from Germany illegal today? Could any of the former allied nations randomly pick a German merchant and check it for contraband?

I commend to your reading The Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. which settled any ambiguity regarding Germany's unconditional surrender in 1945.

Quoted

I think Bruce is being correct and legal, however governments don't tend to think in correct and legal terms. They do whatever is neccessary at the time, whether that means hiding their actions or ignoring the actions of others.

Governments certainly think in correct and legal terms - though they may, through policy, selectively ignore the letter of the law or choose to rish the consequences of their actions in the present or the future.

I commend to your reading the subect of the Treaty of Washington (1871) and the settlement of the Alabama Claims, in which Great Britain was judged to have failed in its duty as a neutral to prohibit the fitting out and sailing of armed warships of the Confederate States during the American Civil War. The resolution of the Alabama Claims established the duty of a neutral to prohibit the construction and delivery of warships to a belligerent in time of war - a point which Britain was to insist in subsequent international conferences - as her commerce had the most to loose in such a scenario.

That subsequent policy decisions of neutrals (such as the US in the Second World War) may transgress the letter of the Hague Convention, history may absolve them the odium of their actions.

OOC:
I found it very interesting, that this small note caused such a wave.

A lot to read for me, to get informed and to be up to date.

@Bruce:
If i have had researched correctly, China never signed the "Haager Convention" or ?