WesWorld

Nation - Status of Relations - Level of Diplomatic Representation - Comments

Argentina – Correct - Minister Plenipotentiary
Armenia – Irregular - Special (occasional) Envoy
Atlantis – Cordial - Minister Plenipotentiary
Australia – Correct - Minister Resident
Azerbaijan – Irregular - Special (occasional) Envoy
Belgium – Friendly - Minister Resident
Bharat – Correct - Minister Resident
Brazil – Friendly - Minister Plenipotentiary
Bulgaria – Cordial – Ambassador - Warsaw Pact ally
Canada – Correct - Minister Plenipotentiary
Chile – Cordial - Minister Plenipotentiary
China – Correct - Minister Resident
Chosen – Irregular - Consul-General
Colombia – Correct - Minister Resident
Denmark – Correct - Minister Resident
France – Friendly - Minister Plenipotentiary
Germany – Friendly - Minister Plenipotentiary
Greece – Cordial – Ambassador - Warsaw Pact ally
Iberia – Correct - Minister Resident
Ireland – Friendly - Minister Resident
Italy - Non-Existent
Japan – Correct - Minister Plenipotentiary
Latvia-Correct-Minister Resident -
Lithuania – Suspended – Vacant - Mission recalled due to civil war
Mexico – Strained - Minister Resident
Netherlands – Friendly - Minister Plenipotentiary
Nordmark – Correct - Minister Resident
Persia – Irregular – Consul-General
Peru – Distant - Consul-General
Philippines – Correct - Minister Resident
Poland – Cordial – Ambassador - Warsaw Pact ally
Romania – Cordial – Ambassador - Warsaw Pact ally
Russian Federation – Friendly - Minister Plenipotentiary
Siam – Irregular - Consul-General
South African Empire – Correct - Minister Resident
Turkey – Cordial – Ambassador - Warsaw Pact ally
United Kingdom – Cordial - Ambassador
United States – Friendly - Minister Plenipotentiary

Neutral Nations

Czechoslovakia – Friendly - Minister Resident
Hungary – Correct - Minister Resident
Saudi Arabia – Irregular - Special (occasional) Envoy
Switzerland – Friendly - Minister Resident
Yemen – Irregular - Special (occasional) Envoy

Any definitions for cordial-friendly-correct-etc mean?

I can see most of those (though I'm going to note that the Wilno Revolt finished in late 1935, SFAIK, so by 1939 it's likely you'd have reopened an embassy).

Would it make sense to combine embassies at remote locations where Yugoslavia has few interests? For example, a Minister Resident covering Saudi Arabia, Yeman, and Hedjez?

Or appoint Honorary consuls

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Any definitions for cordial-friendly-correct-etc mean?

I can see most of those (though I'm going to note that the Wilno Revolt finished in late 1935, SFAIK, so by 1939 it's likely you'd have reopened an embassy).

Cordial relations - The best of friends, long-standing ties of friendship and/or alliance.

Friendly relations - Amicable, good-working relations - occasional, minor disagreements that can be easily resolved.

Correct relations - More the diplomatic norm; we acknowledge that each nation will look after its own interests, but where they coincide, we can work together. Usually confined to those nations with whom the current Yugoslav Government has not had significant interaction.

Irregular relations - Governments with whom Yugoslavia is unlikely to have interaction except upon special need.


As for Lithuania, I realize the civil war is over, but as I, the player, have no idea of the outcome and who all is in charge, I have left it vacant until Agent 148 finishes the Civil War. It will probably go 'Correct' once that is resolved.

Quoted

Originally posted by TexanCowboy
Would it make sense to combine embassies at remote locations where Yugoslavia has few interests? For example, a Minister Resident covering Saudi Arabia, Yeman, and Hedjez?

I, the player, dislike accrediting one representative to more than one nation on a regulalr basis. The 'Special (Occasional) Envoy' might be a diplomat from a nearby embassy or mission.

Game wise, the Foreign Minister has to have his share of patronage too - ergo the PM gets to call the shots on the major diplomats, the FM on the minor.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Or appoint Honorary consuls

There are reasons for having Yugoslav diplomatic missions staffed by Yugoslav nationals. The appointment of honorary consuls might happen for normal consular reasons - for example, in France, the Minister Plenipotentiary is the chief of the diplomatic mission; there might be an honorary consul designated at Marseille or Algiers, depending on

(a) the availability of a suitable person

(b) whether the French might object or not.

Quoted

Italy - Non-Existent

Why would Yugoslavia need a Resident or Consul when they're planning to invade and simply make Italy part of Yugoslavia?

Congratulations, Bruce - you finally got Italy to acknowledge your existence!

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Italy - Non-Existent

Why would Yugoslavia need a Resident or Consul when they're planning to invade and simply make Italy part of Yugoslavia?

you should have taken care of Yugoslavia when you had the chance.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Congratulations, Bruce - you finally got Italy to acknowledge your existence!

*rolls eyes*

Maybe they recognized Latvia as well?

Seems like Mexico is the only one strained...

Hey! Hungary is no longer landlocked!

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Seems like Mexico is the only one strained...

The Yugoslav Government remains leary of the decision of the Cardenas regime regarding the expropriation of foreign oil assets in Mexico. Given the large, and growing, foreign investment in the Yugoslav economy, excessive friendliness with Mexico might be misconstrued by the international community.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Italy - Non-Existent

Why would Yugoslavia need a Resident or Consul when they're planning to invade and simply make Italy part of Yugoslavia?

I do find this comment interesting, if rather rude.

Since I took charge of Yugoslavia the Italian Government, in character, has not seen fit to acknowledge the existence of a new Government in Belgrade, save to make snide comment on how it planned to fund its educational program. The few out-of-character comments directed by the Italian player in my general direction have been dismissive, over-the-shoulder pot shots delivered from a position of smug superiority.

Neither of these positions is conducive to the establishment of viable diplomatic relations. Therefore, since it appears that the Italian Government has no interest in such, I have stated the obvious – Italo-Yugoslav diplomatic relations are non-existent. For this situation I consider that the Italian player has no one to blame but himself; Yugoslavia has demonstrated a willingness to discuss and resolve differences through diplomatic processes.

Based on what I've observed here, I think the conclusion above is definitely justified.

*grabs popcorn*

Quoted

Yugoslavia has demonstrated a willingness to discuss and resolve differences through diplomatic processes.

This is nonsense.

Yugoslavia has been posturing for an invasion of Italy for the past few years. We've had a recent change in government and what do they do? Massively increase spending on the military, especially buying new and advanced weapons (the rationalisation moves were pretty sound) and starting up localised production as if preparing for a long war.

Diplomatically, the only noises heard are of "Italian occupied Slovenia and Croatia" which are deeply unsettling. It's also rather amusing as Yugoslavia is basically just a Serbian mini-empire ruling over a plethora of ethnic groups. All that would change would be moving to "Serbian occupied Slovenia and Croatia" which didn't work out too well historically. In manner of fact what we have are two semi-autonomous Italian provinces (like Tripolitania and Cirenaica) along the border with Yugoslavia. Italy pretty much leaves affairs to themselves whilst bringing industry to the areas, most notably with the expansive shipyard at Trieste. Italy hasn't had the budget for doing any massive lines of fortifications like the Maginot line so is understandably worried by any talk of a Yugoslavian invasion - why? because they can simply walk to the coast and only have to put up with the police along the way.

Then we progress a little while, all along whilst Yugoslavia is going on a military spending bonanza, until we hear of the Warsaw Pact. So, why did all these countries with many opposing views and years of hatred between them suddenly come together in one movement? Ordinarily you'd think it was because Russia was on the march again, but there's been nothing on that front (surprisingly little notice of their "intervention" in Lithuania) so Italy is left with the conclusion that the alliance is directed at her. With such an economic block behind Yugoslavia, a long war has become much more winnable for them.

Why does Italy have little interest in diplomatic relations? Pretty much because she's certain that Yugoslavia is going to invade. It's really only a matter of when, and what can be done to stop it. Italy isn't paranoid, the Eastern Europe really is out to get her.

Quoted

Since I took charge of Yugoslavia the Italian Government, in character, has not seen fit to acknowledge the existence of a new Government in Belgrade, save to make snide comment on how it planned to fund its educational program. The few out-of-character comments directed by the Italian player in my general direction have been dismissive, over-the-shoulder pot shots delivered from a position of smug superiority.

Italy doesn't do much at all on the diplomatic front. It's nothing special with regards to Yugoslavia. A few years back, there were lots of happening and internal unrest, resulting in the establishment of the Italian Republic. I've assumed that things have been fairly smooth sailing since then and pretty much neglected the diplomatic side. Instead I've been focused on the military side, which is the focus of WW; in conducting a fairly thorough strategic defence review; getting a sensible sense of direction and what to do about it whilst not spending silly money. In essence, a fairly smooth buildup into a military for a purpose (as opposed to simply building lots and lots of cool ships, aircraft, tanks etc.)

I don't see Italy's comments on Yugoslav funding as snide. They're eminently reasonable. Yugoslavia is not an economic powerhouse. Their current levels of military spending are plainly unsustainable (the problem is endemic here but it's nice to inject a bit of realism every so often). I look at Italy's economic problems and military spending through the 1920s and 30s as the least of the "major" powers. Yugoslavia here (and many other countries) have no such real life problems because money doesn't concern us here.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I don't see Italy's comments on Yugoslav funding as snide. They're eminently reasonable. Yugoslavia is not an economic powerhouse. Their current levels of military spending are plainly unsustainable (the problem is endemic here but it's nice to inject a bit of realism every so often). I look at Italy's economic problems and military spending through the 1920s and 30s as the least of the "major" powers. Yugoslavia here (and many other countries) have no such real life problems because money doesn't concern us here.

That's a case of seeing and believing what you want to see and believe. As Bruce has spent a lot of research trying to prove, the funding he proposed was not only reasonable, it was low-balled from historical.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I really don't know how you take this as being rude unless you had no idea of what you were getting yourself in for with WW.

That's the sort of rude and snide comment that I see being constantly directed at Bruce.