WesWorld

Apologies if this is a bit short - I did 6 months for Navalism yesterday, and that took ages, so I'm going to fill gaps in pre-1929 only as required. Once I'm up to date in everything, I'll be posting a bit more.

9th January 1929

The three Hawke-class heavy cruisers being constructed are scheduled for launch on Saturday, with trials projected to last for six months. The ships are to be launched at 11am in all three yards. The ships’ names are to be Hawke, Howe and Collingwood, in a change to the original intentions. The fourth ship, originally to have been dubbed Howe, is now being named Anson.

[OOC: There was to have been a Cochrane – but she’s a 1923 light cruiser, so I did some hasty renaming.]

21th January 1929

A major breakthrough in security for the Mediterranean region was announced today. The Royal Navy is to exercise jointly with the Greek Navy, and the two will co-operate in time of war. It is considered that the two will fight alongside one another should hostilities occur in the Mediterranean, whilst Greek forces would take on many of the roles filled by the Royal Navy should it be required to operate out of the area.

In order to cement the deal, the Greeks have generously agreed to upgrade the facilities at Alexandria and Suda Bay, in return being offered use of all British naval bases in the Mediterranean area. It is also being considered that an officer exchange program may be initiated. There are no plans at present for joint exercises, but it is likely that these will become necessary.

9th February 1929

The light cruiser Drake sailed from the Cromarty Firth for Copenhagen, carrying the British delegation for the 1929 Naval Treaty Limitation Talks. The delegation, consisting of the First Lord of the Admiralty, Earl Alexander of Hillsborough, and his staff will be joined in Denmark by the Ambassador, who has arranged appropriate accommodation for those unable to stay in the castle.

The First Lord of the Admiralty is expected to promote the inclusion of smaller or otherwise excluded powers in the Treaty, as well as expanding the capabilities of ships built under the Treaty system. It is also considered likely that there will be no generosity on the subject of submarines, in light of the experiences in the Great War.

23rd March 1929

During the negotiations in Copenhagen, side discussions with the Italian delegates have solved a number of problems that nation had been experiencing. The British and French shares in the Suez Canal are to be reduced, with Italy obtaining a partial membership. Also, Italian and territories in Eastern Africa will be safeguarded by British ships, whilst Italy, in conjunction with Iberia, will oversee British interests in the Mediterranean. The Royal Navy will also take onboard additional roles in the Far East, protecting Iberian property there.

It is unclear how this relates to the arrangements being made with Greece, but it seems unlikely that the Royal Navy will continue to maintain a substantial presence in the Mediterranean. Instead, Singapore and East Africa are likely to be reinforced, with the increased presence allowing more effective policing of trade routes.

OOC: I'd renamed Gravina's improved 'E' class with 'E' names so 'Cochrane' is free and light cruisers continue with the C,D,E theme. I'd figured that leaders were better for station flagships, "I know I may not look as big as the local battleships but you know my namesake, my deeds, my reputation and that the rest of the RN may well be just over the horizon with a new generation of leaders just like me..."

Cheers,

Makes sense, I suppose. Names will revert to those in the reports for the heavy cruisers.

What were the names for the revised Es? I can't find any mention of this change in the documentation.

RLBH

Um...this February news might have been useful to know when we did the treaty negotiations in April, guys. I think it would have strongly influenced some nation's negotiating positions on several issues.

British units along the Pakistan/India border will note increased radio traffic, and vehicle and troop movement, starting about two days after the announcement.

In-character:

"The Indian Government has recalled its ambassador to Great Britain for consultations.

"The Indian Government views a build-up of British forces in the South Pacific as an unnecessary provocation to the free nations of Asia, many of whom once staggered under the yoke of British domination, and an insult to the millions who still toil for their imperialist masters. India intends to review all options available to it to ensure its security and that of all Asian peoples."

It certainly would have effected the talks. The news itself is not surprizing to me, just the timing which does seem opertunistic.

Why would France still accept limits lower than Italy?

I'd see the Greek-UK negotiations as being at the end of the CT negotiation. There is evidence of UK and Italy negotiating during the conference. When the conference ended - I'm not sure.

With revolution in the Phillipines, pirates, wars, two dominions that don't feel that UK is looking after their security (Australia under the CT in its own right) why would a firmer statement on commitment to the Pacific be seen as threatening?

Cheers,

Quoted

What were the names for the revised Es? I can't find any mention of this change in the documentation.

It should be in the spreadsheet I sent.

Cheers,

requests clarification concerning the specifics of the agreement between the British Empire on the one hand and Iberia and Italy on the other.

OOC: I have to agree - these news would have had some impact on the talks, I´m sure. :o/

But it is an interesting piece of "paper" - might influence things in WesWorld more than the authors expected. I foresee the whole political landscape re-shaped, probably. Not sure if I like that....

Quoted

Originally posted by alt_naval
I'd see the Greek-UK negotiations as being at the end of the CT negotiation. There is evidence of UK and Italy negotiating during the conference. When the conference ended - I'm not sure.

With revolution in the Phillipines, pirates, wars, two dominions that don't feel that UK is looking after their security (Australia under the CT in its own right) why would a firmer statement on commitment to the Pacific be seen as threatening?

Cheers,

As I stated France would certainly take this news, in addition to the concerns expressed by the UK, into consideration in reguards to their lower tonnage limits despite having a higher infrastructure level in relation to Italy.

SATSUMA is known to be wary of European interests in the region so no explanation is needed there.

Quoted

During the negotiations in Copenhagen, side discussions with the Italian delegates have solved a number of problems that nation had been experiencing. The British and French shares in the Suez Canal are to be reduced, with Italy obtaining a partial membership.

Wouldn't this require French imput?

Greek POV.

Greece can't depend on the CT for security and the Mediterranean is dominated by AAMN on one side and FAR on the other. Greece's interests seem to clash more with FAR than AAMN (Atlantis-Turkish deals and Russia constructing forts in Turkey). Rather than increasing the antagonism between the two sides by joining one of them we have sided with the third Mediterranean power, GB.

OOC: I'm not privy to the GB-AAMN deal but they seem to swap responsibilities for two regions. Possibly like GB and France in 1912 with the French looking after the Med while GB looked after the North Sea. I can't see this as preventing a war between GB/Greece and AAMN, just recognizes the significant position AAMN has. For AAMN's part, they are weak in the east - and it is a trouble spot.

I'd have thought France & Russia would welcome enhanced security in the Pacific.

Cheers,

Quoted

Originally posted by alt_naval
Greek POV.

Greece can't depend on the CT for security and the Mediterranean is dominated by AAMN on one side and FAR on the other. Greece's interests seem to clash more with FAR than AAMN (Atlantis-Turkish deals and Russia constructing forts in Turkey). Rather than increasing the antagonism between the two sides by joining one of them we have sided with the third Mediterranean power, GB.

How Turkey being weakened by consesions to Atlantis is a threat is beyond my comprehension but at either rate it dosn't change things much for Atlantis.

Not sure where you got the notion that Russia is building forts in Turkey, there was some talk about it, but it never got past that stage.

Quoted

Originally posted by alt_naval
OOC: I'm not privy to the GB-AAMN deal but they seem to swap responsibilities for two regions. Possibly like GB and France in 1912 with the French looking after the Med while GB looked after the North Sea. I can't see this as preventing a war between GB/Greece and AAMN, just recognizes the significant position AAMN has. For AAMN's part, they are weak in the east - and it is a trouble spot.

I'd have thought France & Russia would welcome enhanced security in the Pacific.

France is alreay threatened by Iberia/Italy at home, now they have to deal with their presence in the Pacific instead of the more predictable British, this in addition to increased Italian influence in East Africa ajacent to Djibouti. I don't see the security in that and I certainly wouldn't expect them to continue to accept lower limits than Italy with these factor's in mind.

Given that this is Feb. news it certainly isn't post treaty organized.

Re Forts

Quoted

Possibly like GB and France in 1912 with the French looking after the Med while GB looked after the North Sea.

That's an interesting reference, since it was the challenge of the High Seas Fleet that prompted the British to make that agreement. I am unaware of any similar threat to British interests.

We all know better than to be trouble to the Brits ;-)

Quoted

I'd have thought France & Russia would welcome enhanced security in the Pacific.

It's the Italian and Iberian concentration in the Med that is of concern to France.

That was about 5 sim years ago, with no mention of these forts actually being completed in Turkey. I can understand the Russians adding defenses to the Armenians, but not actively supplying arms or troops to Turkey. Suppling building materials (concrete and rebar) is one thing, supplying arms is another.

With Turkey cleared from the strait, Russia has what it wants and I would imagine they would not take kindly to being blocked again in the Black Sea. However I don't know about the British reaction to this, as historically, the British have sided against whomever might gain a naval advantage on them in any area they wish to power project. The only examples I can think of them not doing this is against the isolationist Americans after 1918 and after 1945 when global domination shifted again.

Quoted

Originally posted by alt_naval
Re Forts

I nevere really went any further with those plans, so I'd have to say they collapsed. I haven't listed any new fortifications on the Greek border but I do recall entertaining the notion of relocating them on the coast of the Sea of Marmara. Again no real plans were laid out or materials invested in any project.

Ithekro's assessment that the forts were not completed is correct.

The fundamental defense policy of the Empire for 40 years, the Two Power Standard, obviously didn't exist in Wesworld. 5:5:3 has been replaced with 5:5:4:4:4:4:4... etc.

Cheers,

My main concern is the Feb. date for the news and not even a protest from the French (due to flow of events).
Thats were I think its somewhat problematic.

I have the same issue with Iberia, compounded by years (in sim time) were Iberia (with an awol player) can play catchup and match everything I build without a proper counter due to late posting.

I'm sure we can work something out but you can see my point here (hopefully).

Wes: So you are saying that this should be late June or July news if make it after the CT talks I'm guessing.

As for the British responce, I'm not quite as concerned as I am with the seeming Greek paranoia over Turkey and its supposed friends. Italy, that I can see with all the arms deals. But I don't see Atlantis or Russia helping Turkey all that much. They seem more interested in helping the Armenians and Byzantium to keep the Russia border and sea routes open. Providing Turkey with some assistance seems more toward keeping Turkey from wanting to expand back into lost territory rather than attempting to gain friendships, nor antogonizing them into a nationalistic fever to regain all that was lost.

Acctually I think keeping the date would be fine. The French limits never really made much sence anyway so this would be a good opertunity to correct that abnormality.

I think doing the opposite would be unfair to several people, particularily towards the French player.