WesWorld

Quoted

Just made this sim so boring with this. Now we just have a Cold War for the next 15 years and that will be the end of this. Just build ships and stare at each other. Wow! that will be so interesting.

Um, sorry? Who knows, it may not last. Heck, when Alkichi was running the Philippines, the Dutch had a forlorn hope of getting them out of SATSUMA. Of course we were also going to go after the NPC nations of Persia and China, but those originally gained players just about long enough to join SATSUMA and quit posting. Curses.

Quoted

I'm just curious as to why SEAR saw fit to exclude Iberia and Denmark, who both have interests in the Far east, and why they would want to deny themselves the use of the Panama canal!

The Dutch would likely to term it more a matter of a failure to include.
SATSUMA's hostility is unlikely to extend to the native-run Kingdom of Siam, which is Denmark's principle obligation. As for Iberia, RAM's absent, and even though you posted on the Paracels matter, I at least wasn't aware you were subbing in general. Beyond that, you'd have to ask Hood, but the 1934 cancellation of the Iberio-Italian-Anglo agreements might have foreshadowed something.

Quoted

It may drive the SAE right into the arms of SATSUMA even if that´s a place the SAE never wanted to be. :o/

And certainly not where the Dutch would like to see SAE.

Quoted

The SAE has no interest in joining SATSUMA other than my enemys enemy is my friend. Fact is the new treaty is made to cause problems in the SAEs backyard - and everybody knows the Indian Ocean always has been of special importance to the SAE.

Article I states quite plainly that the treaty comes into force when a SATSUMA member declares war. No problems will occur if SATSUMA chooses peace. The areas of responsibility are such that the Indian ocean will see the same powers present as it does now.

Quoted

Would the joining of the Netherlands not be a violation of article 15 of SANTA (you know, the secret part)? While SAER is no threat to the SAE directly, the fact that the SAE would have to assist India should they be attacked will most likely put the SAE in conflict with the Netherlands.

It should not. Again, since SEAR is defensive (and since the Dutch have long presumed SATSUMA will be hostile), cases where the treaty applies should see India as the hostile party (*ahem* more hostile). Frankly, depending on what the AANM treaty says (when somebody writes it), the Italian-SAE hostilities may be more troublesome.

Quoted

SAE before signing has to be rated some kind of diplomatic lapse at least.

Two answers :
A): Frankly I did not worry about the article 15 aspect, due to the defensive nature of the treaty.
B): Part of that is the new Krook government and their view of the past - admittedly for which there was often no Dutch player, but that historical record stands as it is. One of those is that SAINT issue you mention later, considering the announcements made at SATSUMA's birth regarding colonial powers, the 1917 Indian attack on the Netherlands, and Indian words and actions from 1917-1934...
C): Apparently it does rate as a diplomatic lapse.

Quoted

SATSUMA set the presedent, NATO raised the bar high and the ABC alliance continued the trend so its no surprise that SEAR is the next in line. It looks to me like alliances based on mutual prevention of war are becoming extinct as regional alliances are set up.

And then later from Earl822's

Quoted

SEAR is not a 1930's alliance, it is from the 50's & 60's and reminds me of the time when Lady Green pointed out to the sim that our politics were from the wrong era.

SATSUMA is hardly from the 1930s either. The closest "parallel" is propaganda of the Japanese Co-prosperity Sphere.
From a Dutch perspective, would not a security arrangement with Australia (at one end of the Indies) and the UK (at the other) make a huge amount of sense? Esp after the end of the Iberian-Italian-Anglo accord meant the UK won't be protecting AANM in the east? Esp after SATSUMA's en bloc withdrawal from Cleito?
From the point of view of other powers, imagine the geopolitical situation if SATSUMA wrested NEI from the Dutch? The UK's possessions and French Indochina would be untenable, Australia would be easily cut off.

Quoted

That and we have a great lack of bad guys. Hitler's dead, Stalin's dead, everyone wants to be the good guys...

Too true. Well apparently not the bit about Stalin. We've got many "nice" governments, and progressive ones. We also lack real competition for strategic resources or other means to "force" players towards war. I run a country that was historically neutral and fought wars over maritime commerce, not really of conquest. Historically they considered the Indies absolutely vital to their economy, and they must be protected. The Dutch are not one of the big boys, just big enough to make a difference- in alliance with others.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
That and we have a great lack of bad guys. Hitler's dead, Stalin's dead, everyone wants to be the good guys...

I'd try and shake things up a bit, but I can't think of anything vaugely realistic to make Canada into an inherantly evil place, eh?

That said, I do my best to creatively interpret treaties (the Cleito Yoink!", anyone? :B) and occasionally antagonize people I probably shouldn't. <<

As a player, I'm iffy on SEAR myself, but Canada is still bound by commonwealth obligations unless I try going for a total break from historical relations and politics, so I didn't have much choice, really. Canada did it's best to object the blatant references to (and following antagonizing of) SATSUMA, but got overruled.

SAER is not just anti-SATSUMA!

Quoted

Article V.
The Contracting Signatories agree to the following division of responsibilities in wartime and that each Signatory should share reconnaissance and plan co-operative operations for the benefit of all Contracting Signatories.
........
Canada: Protection of Canadian Pacific coastline and operations in the Northern Pacific and screening of the Panama Canal with Royal Navy support

This provision alone drags Iberia into conflict with it.

Do the Dutch not appreciate the protection that Dutch shippoing and Surinam benefit from from having Iberian vessels in the Caribbean, that they would allow such an inflamatory clause to be placed in the treaty.

SATSUMA has NO interests in the Eastern Pacific, why is Iberia targeted!!

Shouldn't the Mexican Canal be nearing completion? I seem to recall a 1937 estimate a while back.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
SAER is not just anti-SATSUMA!

Quoted

Article V.
The Contracting Signatories agree to the following division of responsibilities in wartime and that each Signatory should share reconnaissance and plan co-operative operations for the benefit of all Contracting Signatories.
........
Canada: Protection of Canadian Pacific coastline and operations in the Northern Pacific and screening of the Panama Canal with Royal Navy support

This provision alone drags Iberia into conflict with it.

Do the Dutch not appreciate the protection that Dutch shippoing and Surinam benefit from from having Iberian vessels in the Caribbean, that they would allow such an inflamatory clause to be placed in the treaty.

SATSUMA has NO interests in the Eastern Pacific, why is Iberia targeted!!

Dastardly Mexican scribes?

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
Shouldn't the Mexican Canal be nearing completion? I seem to recall a 1937 estimate a while back.

IIRC is should be closer to 1940, we figured there would inevitably be some delay's.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
This provision alone drags Iberia into conflict with it.

Do the Dutch not appreciate the protection that Dutch shippoing and Surinam benefit from from having Iberian vessels in the Caribbean, that they would allow such an inflamatory clause to be placed in the treaty.

SATSUMA has NO interests in the Eastern Pacific, why is Iberia targeted!!

Of course we appreciate the Iberian presence in the Caribbean, and both the mercantile and strategic value of the Panama canal. The Iberian presence in the Caribbean means our fleet allocation to Dutch Guiana is generally patrol vessels and vessels completing shakedown (1).

Iberia is hardly a target with this provision. Aggression by SATSUMA may not involved Iberia, and she may choose to remain on the sidelines. The SATSUMA nations are quite capable of operating commerce raiders throughout the world, and could easily threaten canal traffic. Furthermore, SATSUMA is not self sufficient in resources- and the Malay Achipelago severs their internal supply routes, so operations in the eastern Pacific may be valuable as a distant blockade.


(1) Currently, Dutch forces in the Caribbean include a seaplane tender and squadron on-loan to the Iberians, and have been augmented by light cruiser division and a battlecruiser after their shakedowns finished. Normally it's just patrol vessels and the tender.

Great Britain would support the Dutch statement above. I only added the Panama to be sure that if war broke out and Iberia found that it could not or was unwilling to join the war then the Panama would be protected (sealed off to Satsuma ships) but territorial waters would not be infringed.

It seems some very liberal and dodgy meanings are being put to the words. If Satsuma plays nicely and does not use force then the Treaty never gets used. Simple as that.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Great Britain would support the Dutch statement above. I only added the Panama to be sure that if war broke out and Iberia found that it could not or was unwilling to join the war then the Panama would be protected (sealed off to Satsuma ships) but territorial waters would not be infringed.

It seems some very liberal and dodgy meanings are being put to the words. If Satsuma plays nicely and does not use force then the Treaty never gets used. Simple as that.

So logic plays no part in your planning.!!

What idiot is going to sail completely away from his home waters, pass through the canal, to attack one of SAER's members in it's own back yard, when it's going to come up against the British, French, and Dutch home fleets, as well as the Russian Atlantic fleet.

And before any of you say it, Walter maybe "Mad as a Hatter", but he is most definately NOT an idiot (Sorry Walter ;-) )

Yeah! I'm a lunatic, not an idiot.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Great Britain would support the Dutch statement above. I only added the Panama to be sure that if war broke out and Iberia found that it could not or was unwilling to join the war then the Panama would be protected (sealed off to Satsuma ships) but territorial waters would not be infringed.

It seems some very liberal and dodgy meanings are being put to the words. If Satsuma plays nicely and does not use force then the Treaty never gets used. Simple as that.

So logic plays no part in your planning.!!

What idiot is going to sail completely away from his home waters, pass through the canal, to attack one of SAER's members in it's own back yard, when it's going to come up against the British, French, and Dutch home fleets, as well as the Russian Atlantic fleet.

And before any of you say it, Walter maybe "Mad as a Hatter", but he is most definately NOT an idiot (Sorry Walter ;-) )

Acctually there was some speculation (by some) that Brazil was becoming Pro-SATSUMA. Given their inhibition in reguards to attacking other nations already at war, making plans to cut off the Panama seems somewhat logical.

Brazil joining with SATSUMA would be logical if SATSUMA and Brazil had similar goals and enemies. Since the present enemy of Brazil and Argentina is South Africa (note I did not say the enemy of the ABC Nations), and India and the SAE are friendly, the takes for such an alliance are slim outside of material goods.

Now if we were talking the resentment of some south americans against Iberia and SATUMA's thought against colonialism (and China's issues with Iberia) then you might see same pull between the ABC nations and SATUMA. The problem there is the ABC nations ties to other factions. Argentina with Italy and Chile with Atlantis and the United States(and more distantly Nordmark). Brazil's Imperial bent may take it into very interesting places.

However Swamphen seems to have been busy over the holidays and has lost a lot of his interest in these sims. Maybe something will spark with him, but otherwise it might be time to look for a new Brazil.

Well, it did rather seem as if Japan was cozying up to Brazil and Argentina. Simply as a cooperating nation fueling or by fueling "neutral" tankers, Brazil could host SATSUMA raiders.

But even without Brazil, there are still supply lines in the east Pacific for both parties, a Japanese cruiser force, with a scout carrier, would be extremely uncomfortable to have off the Panama coast, or interdicting supplies originating in the US, or, for that matter, Commonwealth member Canada.

There is also some potential for India operating around the Cape into the Atlantic.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
There is also some potential for India operating around the Cape into the Atlantic.

WHy should they?

Hmm... reading all that stuff convinces me that the leaders of the SAER nations sleep with dozens of weapons in their bed...

When dealing with SAER, why should we bother ourselves with the other side of the Pacific? To me it is a waste of resources better used in the Asia regions and there is absolutely no reason to p*ss off nations in the East Pacific region when we have to worry about our own region (i.e. Asia). Same would be true with this India/Cape/Atlantic idea.

Quoted

Well, it did rather seem as if Japan was cozying up to Brazil and Argentina.

What makes you say that? What am I doing wrong to give you that idea?

Hmmm... maybe the special license/construction fees for the smaller nations are to blame for that.

BTW, last time I checked, the UK does not own the Panama Canal...

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
There is also some potential for India operating around the Cape into the Atlantic.

WHy should they?

Because of the disproportionate resources such raiders tend to attract. The German CLs, though few in number, took far more tonnage to find and eliminate.

Quoted

the leaders of the SAER nations sleep with dozens of weapons in their bed...

Oh, so you've met the DMZSBD ?

Given Australia's intention to leave the agreement in 1st January 1943 the following articles will require alteration.

Quoted

Article IV.
The Contracting Signatories agree to the following division of responsibilities and rightful areas of influence in peacetime and that each Signatory should maintain a proper regular reconnaissance of their designated area for the benefit of all Contracting Signatories.
Great Britain: Pakistani coast, Eastern Indian Ocean, Burmese coast, Strait of Malacca (jointly with Netherlands), Singapore, Sarawak, the South China Sea and Hong Kong.
Netherlands: Dutch East Indies, Java Sea, Celebes Sea, Banda Sea, Bali Sea, Molucca Sea and Southern Indian Ocean (jointly with Australia)
France: Indochinese coastline and Gulf of Thailand
Russia: Northern Pacific and Sea of Japan
Australia: Island of Guinea, Arafura Sea and South Western Pacific
Canada: Canadian Pacific coastline

Article V.
The Contracting Signatories agree to the following division of responsibilities in wartime and that each Signatory should share reconnaissance and plan co-operative operations for the benefit of all Contracting Signatories.
Great Britain: Strikes against India in the Indian Ocean, protection of the Burmese coast, denial of the Strait of Malacca to SATSUMA shipping in cooperation with Dutch forces, Singapore, Sarawak, offensive operations in the South China Sea
Netherlands: Operations in the eastern Indian Ocean and denial of SATSUMA to sea routes via the waterways of the Malay Archipelago
France: Defence of the Indochinese coastline and operations in the Gulf of Thailand, further operations with joint Franco-Russo fleet
Russia: Operations in the Northern Pacific and Sea of Japan
Australia: Protection of the Island of Guinea and South Western Pacific
Canada: Protection of Canadian Pacific coastline and operations in the Northern Pacific and screening of the Panama Canal with Royal Navy support

If Australia is unable, or unwilling to maintain its peacetime commitment to SAER in Article IV, the Royal Navy is willing to take over this patrol activity from 1st Jan 1943. [Technically SAER does not activate until wartime conditions start its effects, but there are background peacetime patrol and intel functions of SAER as a tripwire].
Likewise the Austrailian commitments under Article V in wartime will need to be reassigned. Again the Royal Navy is willing to extend its duties.

The French have Pacific Fleet East rotating anchorages seasonally between Papeete and New Caledonia, so they have extensive resources already on hand to cover the Southwest Pacific area. So if Britain can cover Guinea, then we've got everything shipshape again.

That would be a good solution. Many thanks to the French Navy.

It shall be done, then. I might see if I can work in some more oceanic patrol vessels to deploy there, as well.