WesWorld

WASP was set up as the western tripwire for Persia back in the pre-civil war days, with their expansionist-fueled rhetoric. Now that Persia's an Indian suzerainty, WASP serves as India's tripwire.

Yes, it'd be a bloody, bloody tripwire if India tried to step into it.

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
Well, they signed a treaty, and if they don't defend Saudi Arabia, every single treaty they have ever signed will appear worthless.

There's pretty easy ways to get around that one. How did France and Britain get on defending Poland in 1939? It's just a bluff.

I don't really see India threatening Suez, they've got to push through a lot of British territory to get there, and annoy France and Italy at the same time.

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
Well, they signed a treaty, and if they don't defend Saudi Arabia, every single treaty they have ever signed will appear worthless.

Turkey would be highly concerned by that, and that would probebly lure in Bulgaria. Russia would also be concerned, because of the threat that they could do it to Armenia. France would be concerned because it threatens the Suez Canal, the lifeline to the colonies in the Far East. Atlantis wouldn't, most likely, be concerned, but hey.

The old problem modern diplomatic in a "historic" case. I think Red Admiral is right, when France and Atlantis have only a little interest in this region. Why the hell, they should send troops which could be killed for a land of sand ??? Same for Russia, only if Bharat will went north, then the bear will wake up.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
Why the hell, they should send troops which could be killed for a land of sand ???

Probably because we know there's oil there. We don't know if there's enough to displace Persia (there is, we just don't know it yet), but we know there's oil.

Quoted

Probably because we know there's oil there. We don't know if there's enough to displace Persia (there is, we just don't know it yet), but we know there's oil.

The 1930s economy isn't driven by oil though. There's plenty elsewhere around the world for current needs.

If Britain is basing its policy towards Persia on their oil supplies, as Perdedor claimed, then we can base our policy towards Saudi Arabia on oil as well. Can't have it both ways.

Perhaps. But the source in Romania is starting to run out at this point, FAR doesn't produce enough for self-sufficienticy, Russia aside, and India expanding even more will lead to even more conflict, on a larger scale.

Is more about a stable oil flow. Russia have oil, British have oil, India have part of Persian oil, Italy have lybian oil, US have oil, Atlantis through Mexico have oil and I can't recall if the Venezuelan fields are been exploited, Warsaw pact got oil, IIRC Japan is exploting their oil fields in Karafuto.

So should Atlantis and Russia care for oil? IMO no. Should Bulgaria defend Saudi for oil when now they can get oil from their Romanian allies? IMO no.
Are they are other reasons to fight? perhaps.

So in reality is not about oil but about politics. I think the scenario is more like OTL 1939. The buck has to stop somewhere. WW has seen India almost double in size through a mix of diplomacy, intimidation and war. it could be said the Dutch were prophets.

Ummm...no, they don't. Remember that news about Mexico nationalizing everything?

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
Ummm...no, they don't. Remember that news about Mexico nationalizing everything?

So they should be more worried about Mexico then. than fighting for some sand. As Brock said oil has not been discovered yet in Saudi. The reason India wants Saudi is more land-grabbing than anything else.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
With Persia and Hedjaz neutral how WASP expects to reinforce Saudi? By ship it is. The WASP alliance is not strong enough in shipping or transports to make a difference.

-checks map- I see options.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
If Britain is basing its policy towards Persia on their oil supplies, as Perdedor claimed, then we can base our policy towards Saudi Arabia on oil as well. Can't have it both ways.

I believe the Commonwealth has a vested interest in what is nowadays referred to as "Regional Stability", regardless of what's in, at, or under Saudi sand. A belligerant and expansionist India moving in just south of the Empire's 'Crown Jewels'? I'm not seeing how that's in the Empire's best interests to condone or even ignore. Especially since this stunt seems to somehow involve the death of a King in Iraq

Of the death of a King we have nothing to do with. We only are hearing the claims of the Hashemite ruling houses for the guilty ones to be brought to justice.

OOC: And India have nothing to do with his death. Is the historical one.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
As Brock said oil has not been discovered yet in Saudi. The reason India wants Saudi is more land-grabbing than anything else.

It was actually discovered... I think it was 1937ish. I distinctly remember Kirk putting it in the news.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
With Persia and Hedjaz neutral how WASP expects to reinforce Saudi? By ship it is. The WASP alliance is not strong enough in shipping or transports to make a difference.

-checks map- I see options.

No route without violating neutral territory. Persia and Hedjaz will declare neutrality in any conflict. attacking them will take the moral superiority away from the WASP. Of course in WW the "Good Guys" are always right.

Personally, I feel Wesworld needs a few less "good-guys" and a few more morally-ambiguous grey guys.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
As Brock said oil has not been discovered yet in Saudi. The reason India wants Saudi is more land-grabbing than anything else.

It was actually discovered... I think it was 1937ish. I distinctly remember Kirk putting it in the news.

Still makes no sense for atlantis and russia only joining the war for oil only. It seems more safe for Atlantis to put a palatable government in Mexico than risk more in a war far away if oil is the only reason. But reason is not the driving force of WW sometimes.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
But reason is not the driving force of WW sometimes.

You could say the same thing about OTL politics!

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
But reason is not the driving force of WW sometimes.

You could say the same thing about OTL politics!

True.

Techically, a dictator does run Latvia, as I've been trying to keep it as OLT as possible within the frameworks I've been given, with the exception of the navy. He was a good dictator, as far as those go, well, at least by the standards of Hitler. He massively improved the economy, promoted Latvian nationalism, but this was at the cost of a Soviet style "one party" regime. The economic share of minorities declined, but no physical violence was allowed toward them. Of course, the best part for me was that he went to college in Nebraska, and lived in Houston. Karlis Ulmanis

So I guess we can throw Latvia into the "Morally-ambiguous" pile, just because it has a dictator. I, personnally, believe it should be in between that and the "Good Guys" pile, because this guy was very good, as far as dictators go.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
With Persia and Hedjaz neutral how WASP expects to reinforce Saudi? By ship it is. The WASP alliance is not strong enough in shipping or transports to make a difference.

-checks map- I see options.

No route without violating neutral territory. Persia and Hedjaz will declare neutrality in any conflict. attacking them will take the moral superiority away from the WASP. Of course in WW the "Good Guys" are always right.

I still see options.

(And yes, you can't mention Oil without Wes chiming in with "I'm sucking Venezuala dry, haha!', so I'll preempt that)