WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I don't think it is a wise decision to have the SS Asiatic go for a rescue mission, especially so if some destroyers are already on their way to the place....

Quite true. If the submarine is still there, then you court a second disaster.

I think this might be something of a deciding factor in international opinion...

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I think this might be something of a deciding factor in international opinion...

I think that is an understatement. The deliberate sinking of a commercial passenger vessel contrary to the Cruiser Rules is a very serious matter.

Quite true. It all constitutes unacceptable behavior on the part of Chosen... much to the general irritation of the French, who want to be more sympathetic. But now it's definitely a case of "pox on both your houses".

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Quite true. It all constitutes unacceptable behavior on the part of Chosen... much to the general irritation of the French, who want to be more sympathetic. But now it's definitely a case of "pox on both your houses".

Well put.

It leaves the Philippines in quite a quandary - they have no great love for China, but a loose cannon like Chosen could turn on anyone.

Is there a legend somewhere for the signs you use on your maps?

I have to admit I am not very used to those different unit identifiers in general.

Maybe this will make things clearer for you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Milita…d_Based_Systems

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I think this might be something of a deciding factor in international opinion...

I think that is an understatement. The deliberate sinking of a commercial passenger vessel contrary to the Cruiser Rules is a very serious matter.

Agreed.
Part of my getting back up to speed is finding time to read all the Sino-Chosen material, but the Dutch have always expected the Cruiser rules to be followed.

Some of the Do-24s sent on search and rescue could have been the Mexican ones. Hmm, might be a good chance to bring some damming evidence to the League of Nations.

*burns evidence*
No such thing exits, sir.

No survivors? You didn't evacuate the crew before you sunk the ship? This is becoming quite an evident issue. While I'll admit that unless someone IC spreads news of these actions it is highly unlikely that Greece would even be aware of them. However, if verifiable news of Chosen OR China sinking merchants without warning, and without following the generally accepted 'rules' regarding submarine attacks on merchants, then whatever trade either country has with Greece would be immediately suspended.

Same with Italy.

As I already said, I never signed anything restricting submarine warfare or warfare at all.
I deem such rules as gentlemen's agreements which may be appropriate in a european war but which are our of place in east asia.
Furthermore there are practical issues: At first, in an area where Chinese subchaser- and aircraftpatrols are common, it would be much to risky to surface the boat, give a warning and evacuate the crew of the enemy ship. Besides, there is not much room in a submarine and taking additional 15 or 20 Chinese survivors on board would mean the boat would have to return to base. I am not willing to risk one of the few submarines I have or abort a mission just to save a few Chinese sailors.

Regarding the "No survivors"...My submarine commanders have no specific orders on what to do with survivors. Therefore they tend to be clinical about there job: making sure that the enemy ship sinks and get out.
They don't care if anyone suvives...if the Chinese crewmen get into their lifeboats...fine...if not....too bad. And in the particualry case of the 17th August, getting into a lifeboat while the sinking tanker is surrounded by a burning oilslick is not as easily done as it may sound.

I try to script a war which fits into the cultural and historical scene and therefore I can assure you, it will get much worse than sinking tankers and passenger ships without warning

Mexican flyingboats wparticipated in the rescue of passengers from the sunken liner, so Mexico will be making an official announcement as soon as I have some free time.

Quoted

Originally posted by Daidalos
As I already said, I never signed anything restricting submarine warfare or warfare at all.

No one is disputing this fact.

Quoted

I deem such rules as gentlemen's agreements which may be appropriate in a european war but which are our of place in east asia.

Unfortunately, the cruiser rules, admittedly framed by European nations, are generally accepted as applying to all civilized nations. Germany's adoption of unrestricted submarine warfare in the OTL and WW Great Wars caused great international outrage and tended to put it beyond the pale of civilized nations, despite being European.

I doubt very much that European powers would accept your argument that the rules of civilized nations do not apply in East Asia - since it is their ships that ply the waters in question.

Quoted

Furthermore there are practical issues: At first, in an area where Chinese subchaser- and aircraftpatrols are common, it would be much to risky to surface the boat, give a warning and evacuate the crew of the enemy ship. Besides, there is not much room in a submarine and taking additional 15 or 20 Chinese survivors on board would mean the boat would have to return to base. I am not willing to risk one of the few submarines I have or abort a mission just to save a few Chinese sailors.

Well, that is the risk you have to run if you do not want the rest of the world to regard your submarine arm as anything more than a bunch of murdering pirates.

Quoted

Regarding the "No survivors"...My submarine commanders have no specific orders on what to do with survivors. Therefore they tend to be clinical about there job: making sure that the enemy ship sinks and get out.
They don't care if anyone suvives...if the Chinese crewmen get into their lifeboats...fine...if not....too bad. And in the particualry case of the 17th August, getting into a lifeboat while the sinking tanker is surrounded by a burning oilslick is not as easily done as it may sound.

The same clinical attitude may end up being applied to any submarine found sailing outside of Chosen's territorial waters - sink it first and ask the questions later. Frankly, you are running a high risk here and almost courting international intervention in some manner, shape of form.

Quoted

I try to script a war which fits into the cultural and historical scene and therefore I can assure you, it will get much worse than sinking tankers and passenger ships without warning

That statement merely confirms my comment above; it you want to be treated as a pariah state, you can do that; don't complain to anyone about the subsequent consequences.

Quoted

This policy, with its attendant risk of accidental sinking of neutral merchant vessels and belligerent merchants not subject to lawful attack according to the Geneva Conventions, is an affront to the law of civilized nations.

There's a good chance that Chosen has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention so you can't really force your laws on a nation that has nothing to do with your laws.

Indeed. Is there proof Chosen signed? (Could be a problem as we never played that - so I think this is more of a problem we should solve OOC. )

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

This policy, with its attendant risk of accidental sinking of neutral merchant vessels and belligerent merchants not subject to lawful attack according to the Geneva Conventions, is an affront to the law of civilized nations.

There's a good chance that Chosen has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention so you can't really force your laws on a nation that has nothing to do with your laws.

Realistically, it can be done. Just ask any previously-independent nation that was subjected to colonial rule. Failing to abide by European notions of civilized warfare has been a popular casus belli over the years. OTL Japan even invoked it with it suited them.

All of the things you say are right in some way.
But....

1.) I refuse to wage a war of the 20th century like it was a war of the 19th century.

2.) China has a great numerical and industrial superiority and all this talking about "civilized warfare" is imperialistic nonsense which only a great power would dare to think about. There is no such thing like a "civilized war".
A great power fighting against some minor nation might decide not to use all of its power because it can win the war even without using unrestricted submarine warfare or things like that.
Moreover, Gentlemen's aggrements are for Gentlemen, for two opponents which have some degree of equality in some regards. The war against China is more a David against Goliath thing. The war is existential for Chosen and the survival of its people, therefore it is absurd to demand some kind of "fairness".

3.) I don't have a 1000-plane strategical bomber fleet to level Chinese cities and I don't have an awesome fleet with 10+ aircraftcarriers. Due to this I have to utilize the few things I have as efficient as possible without careing about a 21st century morale mindset.

4.) Military interventions are not commited due to morale. I know , I pictured Chosen and the regime of Jong Un as rather unsympathetic at least if you have western 21st century morale standards. But I think playing WW in 1943 with a 21st century ethic is OOC.
If we put morals aside and try to think about the China-Chosen-War like politicians of the 40ies, power politic is much more important than a few atrocities. From a political point of view I can't comprehend why the countries which have interests in the region would isolate Chosen. A strenghtened Chosen is much less a threat to the minor nations and the major nations interest in the region than an even stronger Chinese Empire.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

This policy, with its attendant risk of accidental sinking of neutral merchant vessels and belligerent merchants not subject to lawful attack according to the Geneva Conventions, is an affront to the law of civilized nations.

There's a good chance that Chosen has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention so you can't really force your laws on a nation that has nothing to do with your laws.

Untrue. The Korean Empire signed the 1899 Geneva Convention in 1903, and then Japan signed the follow-on conventions in Chosen's name. (Specifically see the Hague Secret Emissary Affair for evidence of the world recognition of this state of affairs.)

So Chosen is bound by the 1899 and 1907 Geneva Conventions unless they specifically repudiate them with the administrator of the treaty, which is the Netherlands.

Question: what makes you think Chosen never left the treaty, e.g. in 1912?

Everything before 1920 is either historical data approved by the player in question or open to debate.

Do we have a written detailed history for Chosen that may help us define wheter or not Chosen signed or left Geneve?