WesWorld

February 1944: In the aftermath of the international response to the San Juan earthquake incident, the French government desires to propose to the League of Nations the creation of a permanent Service aérien humanitaire or 'Humanitarian Air Service', to respond quickly to international humanitarian crises. In order to facilitate the creation of such a service, the Republic of France is willing to put up one quarter of the organization's funding for the next ten years, and donate a group of sixteen N.1510 transports to serve as the core of the organization's fleet. Further transport aircraft could be hired as need and locale dictates.

Japan thinks that this is an excellent proposal from the French. A message will be sent to Japan to see what can be made available to support the S.A.H./H.A.S. Considering that it is a French proposal, would it also be an idea to establish an international headquarters for S.A.H./H.A.S. in Paris?

Italy agrees with France's idea. As the world grows closer via travel by air, so does our collective ability to help those far away. While Italy will contribute some aircraft directly to the Servizio Aereo Umanitario [OOC note: I will need to define the type later. Let me get the reports caught up first.], until such contributions can be made aircraft assigned to the Italian Armed forces will be made availbe should another incident requiring mass airlifts take place.

France would be amenable to hosting an international headquarters for the organization, if that's what is determined.

The French are going to suggest that, so far as possible, the organization should avoid using military-owned aircraft, in order to prevent difficulties with countries that may not wish to have overflights by another nation's military aircraft. Instead, the Service should be run like a cargo airline.

It is the opinion of the German Government that having a large force of tactical (or strategic) transport aircraft dedicated to carrying out humanitarian aid would be wasteful of resources. The need for large-scale airlift, such as that witnessed in Argentina, is thankfully infrequent.

To date, the League's humanitarian missions have been few and far between; indeed, most such missions have been performed by and at the instigation of national command authorities. The German Government believes that it is in such authorities that such large assets should be retained.

This is not to say that the League cannot make use of air assets to perform those humanitarian missions it chooses to undertake. Most such will require much smaller numbers of aircraft, of smaller size, and tailored to the needs of specific missions. Such assets can and ought to be procured by the League from the private sector, rather than from national militaries.

OOC: that makes Japan wonder what Das Andere Deutschland will write about that opinion from the German Government... Wasting resources to help out people in the occasional disaster areas or wasting resources to build military equipment to fight non-existing enemies. :-)

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
OOC: that makes Japan wonder what Das Andere Deutschland will write about that opinion from the German Government... Wasting resources to help out people in the occasional disaster areas or wasting resources to build military equipment to fight non-existing enemies. :-)

[SIZE=3]Finally! [/SIZE]

Someone admits to reading Das Andere Deutschland!

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

... does that mean that I am an independent, Socialist pacifist?

They're fun to read and I was actually thinking of making an IC reply with the "What enemies does the Reich have? We are allied with France and Russia, we have non-aggression agreements with nearly every other nation in Europe. Yet we spend millions of Reichsmarks on ships, aeroplanes and panzers." bit from Das Andere Deutschland...

... but that would mean that the Japanese would have to admit that they are reading independent, Socialist, pacifist newpapers...

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
... but that would mean that the Japanese would have to admit that they are reading independent, Socialist, pacifist newpapers...

The Kempeitai would not likely understand that...

While Britain supports the general idea, and applauds it, we also share some of Germany's valid concerns.

although the need is generally (thankfully) not frequent, natural disasters such as hurricanes and cyclones happen yearly and such an air service would probably see sporadic but continual use. Even so, many smaller local disasters can be handled by the nation's own Air Force assets. The bigger question is what would the S.A.H./H.A.S. do in day-to-day activities to maintain the fleet, flying hours and generally remain active? Could the League justify operating a primarily non-profit cargo operator 365 days a year? Whose cargo would it shift beyond emergency aid work? Given the enormous distances involved in global flights this suggests basing would need to be regional with a base in Europe, America, Africa and Asia which suggests either a bigger than ideal force or smaller outposts with a couple of aircraft each to be reinforced by a European reserve park.

Britain suggests it might be better to secure Red Cross/Red Crescent involvement to provide immunity to all these aircraft and remove any national involvement. The aircraft could then be used on lifesaving flights across the world all the time. The League could offer to fund and equip such an international Red Cross/Crescent Air Service cheaper and more effectively, and it could use civilian aircraft with minimal changes rather than expensive military types.

Britain pledges to support any final organisation financially and materially if desired.

Also, I read the Das Andere Deutschland, Britain reads everything German! I enjoy both Bruce's and Brock's editorial comments. An idea I might steal myself.