WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan

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.

Actually, I often wondered if this treaty (known as "Vier-plus-Zwei-Vertrag in Germany) really settled it all. It is a treaty between USA, Britain, France, Sowjetunion and Germany. It does not adress all the other countries that decided to join WW2 on allied side...

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
OOC:
@Bruce:
If i have had researched correctly, China never signed the "Haager Convention" or ?

It is entirely possible that China is not a signatory to the Hague Convention of 1907. That being said, any nation that is signatory is obligated to conform to its provisions. Failure to do so leaves them liable to the consequences of their actions; a condition that pertains to all governments.

A point here gentlemen.

I think what Bruce has been trying to say is that while SAE, or any other nation can sell armaments, aircraft, warships, or materials that could be useful in war, they cannot do such and honestly claim neutrality at the same time. I am quite sure we could spend the next couple of years pulling out historical facts of where various "neutrals" supplied belligerents during a war, the most famous being perhaps Lend-Lease, and I think we can all come to a consensus that governments treat all laws whether international or national as areas which can be bent if its in the national or political interest.

That being said, actions have reactions, and while a convoy is a bit more difficult to prove as to whether a nation is transporting war materials to a nation in a conflict, the sale of a warship would be quite abit easier. Also even if the international community were to agree that a nation selling a warship to a nation involved in an external conflict is neutral, it does leave the door open for nations unfriendly towards the seller to sell warships to the buyers opponent(s). However the seller has no creditibility to argue against such a sale when it happens to them.

Put simply, Mexico can sell to China if it so wishes, but it leaves the precedent for Iberia to sell to the Philippines. Or SAE to China, and Brazil to the Philippines. And in all cases, none of the nations involved could argue against a sale of a warship being made to their opponent in a future war. So in other words, the SAE cannot complain in a hypothetical round 2 if lets say France sells their entire fleet to Argentina for 1 ton.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
A point here gentlemen.

I think what Bruce has been trying to say is that while SAE, or any other nation can sell armaments, aircraft, warships, or materials that could be useful in war, they cannot do such and honestly claim neutrality at the same time.

My point exactly.

Speaking of...

"As you can see, we have been supplying China and the Philippines equally. In matters of Death, the South African Empire is stricktly impartial." (if I remember the lines correctly)


... of course, being impartial does not exactly mean being neutral.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
So in other words, the SAE cannot complain in a hypothetical round 2 if lets say France sells their entire fleet to Argentina for 1 ton.

Well, you omitted the second part of that sentance. Should it have been "...sells their entire fleet to Argentina for 1 ton, thus providing lots of targets for practice bombing to RSAF crews."? ;o)

France could sell the ships but Argentina would never have the crews to man them. And would send France crews with the ships, the case would be different to any other sale we had before.

But I agree to your general statement. Everything you do in life comes back to you.

Due to the whole discussion, i've checked the warships purchased by the combatants:

Quoted

Q4/1940:

Filipinos:
12 Wickes Destroyers from USA
6 Cantore Destroyers from Italy


China:
6 Azteka-Class Frigates from Mexico
1 Armoured Cruser from Thailand delivery date not confirmed due to war uncertainty



Q1/1941:

Filipinos:
Light Cruiser Maunga Terevaka from Chile delivery date not confirmed due to war uncertainty
Capitan Orella-class escort destroyers from Chile delivery date not confirmed due to war uncertainty


China:
TB Vendidad from Persia

[size=1]no guarantee for completeness[/size]

So we have some "neutral" countries which making good business in time of war .

I would say, it's time to switch in the LoN-Thread to discuss this point and not here in the news.

Pardy has a point. This kind of discussion is better off in the LoN thread...

Only if a nation brings this case before the LoN (so IC).

So how about a split off into an OOC thread on this topic, instead of cluttering Parador's news thread?

My $0.02

forgot this was here...

Quoted

1 Armoured Cruser from Thailand delivery date not confirmed due to war uncertainty

I believe you have a PM on that subject...

21. November:
China is preparing for a prolonged conflict with the Filipinos. Food stamps are distributed, the industry is slowly growing in full swing and the post office
delivers several times a week convening notices.

The French government is most alarmed by these developments and again offers to help negotiate a settlement to end the war.

In March 1938 the Chengtu Arsenal made a proposal for a super-heavy howitzer to attack border forts. Their initial concept was for a weapon that would be transported
by several tracked vehicles and assembled on site, but the lengthy preparation time drove them to change it to a self-propelled weapon in January 1939. Extensive
driving trials took place in 1939 and 1940 using the chinese medium tank prototypes and a scale model to investigate the extremely high ground pressure and
steering of such an enormous vehicle. Firing trials took place in June 1940.The full-scale driving trials were held at the Mukden Arsenal in Manchuria in May 1940.
General Zhu Laoshi of the Artillery was involved in the development, from whom the huge weapon gained its nickname.


The benefits of such a vehicle is of course another side. But it shows the great engineering skills of the chinese industry.


A first batch of 5 vehicles was built till the end of 1940.



[size=1]Zhu mortar at testing site[/size]

France is rather alarmed that the Chinese are constructing such large weapons to "attack border forts". The acquisition of such heavy specialized siege warfare equipment does little to calm the military alarmists who believe China is looking to expand past said border forts...

A very impressive weapon, with only one obvious use - the reduction of fortified positions on China's border. And there is only one such position on China's border that would merit such a weapon to achieve its reduction and capture. No doubt the British chiefs of staff will think long and hard on its implications.

True words ..... but ..... China could lent or sell the weapon to other countries and there will be sure someone who wants to have this mortar ..

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
and there will be sure someone who wants to have this mortar ..

Why? In the very few circumstances where siege warfare might still apply, it can be carried out more effectively with substantially smaller, less expensive, less maintenance-intensive artillery, such as 8" or 12" siege mortars (such as the 240mm used by France during the Great War). Siege guns are extremely specialized and expensive sorts of weapons, and this is an extremely specialized and expensive sort of siege gun. I suppose there's always a few countries looking to waste their money engaging in the "my gun is bigger than yours" game - mostly Asian.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
and there will be sure someone who wants to have this mortar ..

Siege guns are extremely specialized and expensive sorts of weapons, and this is an extremely specialized and expensive sort of siege gun.

Production of the weapon is costly and time consuming in the extreme, and the weapon, once emplaced, it is very vulnerable to counter-battery fire, to air attack, or to counter-attack.

Its development and deployment unfortunately confirm existing preconceptions of China's intent to expand its borders by military means. All the smooth words spoken in Beijing cannot obscure the intent of Chinese policy.