You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.


Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 6:22pm

Brazil, Q1/30 News

2 Jan 1930 - Contra-Almirante Torres and Capitão de Mar-e-Guerra (Captain) Nazário have filed a joint report on the wargames in the Gulf of Mexico. Of particular interest was the seeming vindication of the school of thought that says aircraft will prove more decisive in future conflicts, however Almirante Torres has cautioned that such a result could be due to any number of factors other than the actual utility of naval aircraft. Another point of interest were the Atlantean landing ships, which could prove a vital asset in any future wars that require amphibious landings.

30 Jan 1930 - Contra-Almirante Torres, Buro do Navio, has confirmed that talks are underway with the Atlanteans about using a pair of slips in the future to build up to four ships. He stressed that because the design being considered for the project was over the Cleito tonnage limit and any Atlantean personnel working on the project would be a violation of the Cleito Treaty, the deal being discussed would involved Brazilian personnel and materials only; no Atlantean dock workers or military personnel would be allowed on the dry-docks during construction in order to avoid accusations of Cleito non-compliance. He also noted that the docks would still remain Atlantean and that all measures would be taken to make sure Atlantean regulations regarding construction safety and quality would be followed to the letter if the deal goes through.

6 Feb 1930 - Reacting to the news from the Atlanteans, Minister of Foreign Affairs Oswaldo Aranha was quoted as saying, "The Império do Brasil understands and respects the domestic concerns of Atlantis. Obviously, it would not be in the interests of Atlantis to have all their shipbuilding shut down because of a mere two foreign ships built by foreign crews.

"However, that understanding does not extend to the SAE. First, we kindly remind them that in any hypothetical war the balance of power at sea would not be a major factor. Second, I note with disappointment, but not surprise, that the SAE holds the arrogance and attitudes of the old Conquistadors. Third, I note that Brazil is a mass exporter of many goods that are necessary for a great many things, such as Teak; it would be most unfortunate for the SAE navy if they were forced to deck their ships in wood that was constantly rotting because they couldn't find it within themselves to stop acting like Cortes on a power trip.

"Also, Empress Isabella II has asked me to remind the South Africans that the more they act like Conquistadors, the easier it is for Brasil and all true South American nations to make their stay on our continent very miserable indeed. She kindly suggests that they consider what a truly tenuous position they hold diplomatically and strategically. If they wish to be a part of the South American community, to truly be a member and not just assume it through sheer force of arrogance, then they must sit down and start talking with every South American nation, otherwise they shall quickly find themselves about as welcome here as the Black Death. Obrigado, that is the entirety of my statement."

10 Jan 1930 - There was surprise in the capitol today when an offer from Iberia to host the building of future Brazilian large ships. The offer was given with the proviso that the ships be Cleito legal, which Minister of Foreign Affairs Oswaldo Aranha readily accepted.

"Obviously, building ships smaller than designed is an advantage for Brasil at this point. I have been notified by the Buro do Nave that the Iberian Armada believes they can accomplish that goal without compromising protection, speed, or armament.

"I also note that the South Africans continue to act like jackbooted thugs. They have demonstrated a desire to continue their 'dominance', such as it is, of the South American continent by seeing the various South American armed forces rust to a scrap heap. The better to invade and annex us all, no doubt. The filthy Conquistadors.

"Mark my words, the day will come when the South Africans will find themselves relegated to their continent only. How soon that day comes depends on how soon they learn that their petty, childish bullying works only to their detriment and corrects their behavior. Once again, I urge them to sit down at the negotiating table while that is still an option."


Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 7:18pm


He stressed that because the design being considered for the project was close to Cleito 5% limit and the possibility existed for an error that would cause the ship to go over the tonnage limit

The what limit?

If you mean the 5% 'cheating' margin, the CT doesn't allow nations to cheat on it. That's just a gentlemen's rule; if no Atlanteans are allowed on to their dock, you can (almost) please yourself and lie about it.



Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 7:46pm

[Noted and edited.]


Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 8:52pm

Ahem, cough, cough.....

I think you 'll find that Atlantis could not allow her facilities to be used under the Treaty, so You would have to talk to a non-treaty nation (ME!!!) or keep it legal!!


Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 8:55pm

[Just let the storyline develop, ne?]


Tuesday, February 28th 2006, 11:40pm

Were the ships be reported as within treaty tonnage limits or within another classification, Atlantis could build the battlecruisers for you (with Brazil paying of course) If the problem is tonnage, have the ship built to its light tonnage limit and launch it. Tow it to Brazil and fit it out to its "illegal" limit. That way Atlantis did not build outside the treaty limit.


Wednesday, March 1st 2006, 2:45am

[While I appreciate the suggestion, I know that. I'm trying to develp a story line, which means that no matter how many more sensible work arounds there are, it'll be done this way. Oh, and who said I was building a battlecruiser?]


Wednesday, March 1st 2006, 6:41am

It's my news post, throwing them all a curveball, Mwaaahahaha!!


Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message


Tuesday, March 14th 2006, 9:51am

2nd of February
Pretoria. The news about the latest cooperation between Brazil and Atlantis have raised some eyebrows among members of the South African Government. In general politicians are sceptical if such a deal violates the spirit of the Cleito Treaty as it allows the wheels of the South American arms race to spin even faster. Some also expressed their concerns regaring the way this deal came to life. There was no consultation with our government by our Atlantean friends prior to the announcment of the contract.

4th of February
Pretoria. The Atlantean ambassador was called to the Kings office early this mornung. No details are known but rumors were afloat that a note was handed over requesting a statement by the Atlantean government how such a deal influences the balance of power in South American and especially in light of the Cleito Treaty. The note further expresses our Kings concerns regarding the influence of such contract on relations between Atlantis and the SAE. It reminds the Atlantean government that Brazil is rated as potentially hostile by the SAE and that there is a non-aggression pact signed by both Atlantis and the SAE.


Wednesday, March 15th 2006, 11:03am

Feb. 5th

The Atlantean government has officially announced that it respectfully declined Brazils request for the use of Atlantean shipyards. The Brazilian request has sparked heated debate in Parliment and several shipyard workers unions threatened civil disobedience.

The Atlantean government issued the following statment...

"The Cleito treaty prevents Atlantean workers from building ships over the treaty's limits and as such would force the shipyards to use outside labour. This has caused quite a stir not only in parliment, but in the shipyards involved in the deal. The Atlantean shipworkers union vigorously protested the deal.

In addition the South African Empire expressed extreme concern involving the deal as Brazil is still part of the four part alliance which has considerably strained relations. They also expressed their concern that a new South American arms race would be fueled by this deal.

As standard practice a deal of this magnitude must recieve approval of the government and must be debated in the house. This has resulted in some confusion reguarding our possition.

As a result we informed the Brazilian government today that the Government of Atlantis respectfully declines their offer as it would violate the non-agression treaty between Atlantis and South Africa and in addition would likely lead to a shipworkers strike given the level of opposition it recieved from the unions.

We also informed the government of South Africa that we remain commited to containing an arms race in the region and abiding by the non-agression treaty that both nations signed. We sincerely regret the inconveinience this issue has caused."


Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message


Wednesday, March 15th 2006, 12:00pm

Well put....


Wednesday, March 15th 2006, 6:39pm

How big a of slip or dock will the Brazilian ships require?

If a reason and price is right, Chile could build such a vessel...should it have an avalible slip....and Chile could be assured such a vessel would not be used against Chile.


Wednesday, March 15th 2006, 7:27pm

I beleive they were type 4 slips but I may be wrong.
Given the Atlantean building shedual in the next 4-6 years the deal wasn't likely to be carried out even if all the current hurdles were overcome, a tall order in itself.


Wednesday, March 15th 2006, 7:36pm

Chile currently Has only Type 3, so it could not build such a vessel unless funds were acquired to expand the yards.

It would require 3 IP to get one slip or dock up to Type 4, or more to get a Type 2 up to Type 4.


Thursday, March 16th 2006, 8:59am

[Updated. In case anybody's wondering, that little speech was hostile in the diplomatic sense. Very hostile. However, other than the first sentence, which related more to the supposed arms race than anything, not a word of it was militarily-oriented.]


Thursday, March 16th 2006, 9:42am

Quite a few barbs thrown South Africa's way in the addendum to your post!


Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message


Thursday, March 16th 2006, 10:50am

I especially like this one: "First, we kindly remind them that in any hypothetical war the balance of power at sea would not be a major factor."

One wonders if the citizens in all the seaside towns agree to such a statement - in the face of an enemy warship shelling their homes or their trawlers.

Of course a war with Brazil would be a land war in first place but if one side can get whatever reenforcement is necessary things will get nasty for the other party involved. My ignorant opinion of course...


Thursday, March 16th 2006, 2:38pm

[And what does bombarding a city accomplish? Nothing of military value. The last action of the German High Seas fleet during WWI was to sortie to bombard a British village, all that accomplished beyond indiscriminate destruction was to make those people scream for blood. It's why no nation that appreciates the psychological values in warfare does that kind of thing anymore.

As for reinforcements, I have an entire army perched on your border with Brazil and another in Rio serving as a nation-wide strategic reserve. There's also the regiment of Naval Fusiliers that serves as a rapid reaction force based in Rio. Altogether, neither a poorly-trained nor insignificant force. Also, there's Argentina and the fact that you are in possession of land that used to be theirs.]


Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message


Thursday, March 16th 2006, 2:53pm

I was thinking of resources Brazil needs. Controlling and/or destroying port facilities leaves Brazil without foreign supply - which cannot be countered by land transport as the jungle and mountains will make that impossible.

Not sure what others think (my comments are not meant to be saber rattling but a discussion on the value of cutting off sea lanes), but the example of Germany - both in WW1 and WW2 - provides some hints what would happen.

Even more so than Brazil Germany is a power focused on land wars than fighting at sea. Germany has only a small coastline to defend - most of which could be protected easily because the geographic situation allowed to deny the Baltic Sea to enemy forces (historically). Nevertheless Germany suffered a lot from the blockade of their oversea supply lines and destruction of their merchant fleet. I don´t see why this scenario should not apply to Brazil.

So Brazil may have a large army (quality cannot be judge in detail but Brazil has to be rated less industrialized as the SAE and historically this always meant an army less effective) but without decent supply this army won´t fight very long and go very far.

Your opinions?


Thursday, March 16th 2006, 3:03pm

Comments. Why annoy a country that has more cruisers in its navy than you have ships?

There is a very limited area for Brazil to strike against SA and that one route has a large river between Brazil and the SA territory. Theres also a load of 1. Jungle 2. Open areas of farmland. These factors mean that it easy to see any Brazilian forces if they move in open country, or to hinder their movements by forcing them into Jungle.

Resupply might not be such a problem. What will be a problem is that SA can (and probably will) destroy all of Brazil's naval infrastructure at Rio leaving Brazil poor and powerless for years to come.