Capto Iugulum: 1920 - 1939

[Lokki242]

OOC: What... the hell...

To: India
From: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
CC: Argentina, Persia

As Argentina is our ally and friend, the United Kingdom does not believe it should stand by idly in the conflict in India. As the United Kingdom has remained neutral in this conflict, we feel that we would make a suitable arbiter between India and Argentina. Our suggested agreement is simply that India and Argentina sign a non-aggression pact that will last for 20 years; also, seeing as the United Kingdom has strong relations with both Argentina an Persia, this non-aggression pact should be accompanied with similar pacts with both the United Kingdom and Persia, India's immediate neighbors. We would also hope that the Indian government pledge to redress some of the grievances between the federalists and the separatists.

OOC: *Iran

Iran had a treaty of this variety in the past, but it collapsed with the civil war. We will renew the pact with both warring parties however.

To: The Warring Factions of India
From: High Shahansha Nasir al-Din II of the Shahdom of Iran

The Second Tehran-Mumbai Pact​

1. In the interest of preserving peace in the Middle Eastern region, the United and Allied Principalities of India and the Shahdom of Iran will sign a twenty year non-aggression pact.

2. If any nation is to attack either signatory without what is deemed a proper casus belli, the other signatory nation will respond by a declaration of war on the offending nation. Adding to this, Iran will continue to remain neutral in the civil war.

3. The United and Allied Principalities of India and the Shahdom of Iran will agree to a mutual lowering of tariffs on domestic goods.

4. The United and Allied Principalities of India and the Shahdom of Iran will assist each-other in both their domestic and military projects and designs, if assistance is directly asked for.

Signed, High Shahansha Nasir al-Din II, Sovereign of Iran
Signed, Mohammad Foroughi, Foreign Minister of Iran
Signed, Abdol Teymourtash, Economic Minister of Iran

 

[m.t.cicero]

The Second Tehran-Mumbai Pact​

1. In the interest of preserving peace in the Middle Eastern region, the United and Allied Principalities of India and the Shahdom of Iran will sign a twenty year non-aggression pact.

2. If any nation is to attack either signatory without what is deemed a proper casus belli, the other signatory nation will respond by a declaration of war on the offending nation. Adding to this, Iran will continue to remain neutral in the civil war.

3. The United and Allied Principalities of India and the Shahdom of Iran will agree to a mutual lowering of tariffs on domestic goods.

4. The United and Allied Principalities of India and the Shahdom of Iran will assist each-other in both their domestic and military projects and designs, if assistance is directly asked for.

To: Iran
From: India

There is but one legitimate government in India, and yet this treaty seems to imply that there are two. The fact that you fail to recognize this alone proves that Iran, once a friend to India, has turned its back on us and is no longer trustworthy enough to make any sort of deal with. We desire only one thing of Iran: recognize that the government of His Divine Majesty High Prince Khushwant Diwan is the one true legitimate government of India. We demand that you revoke your recognition of the revolting princes at once. Then perhaps we can begin to rebuild relations between Tehran and Mumbai.

 

[Lokki242]

There is but one legitimate government in India. The fact that you fail to recognize this alone proves that Iran, once a friend to India, has turned its back on us and is no longer trustworthy enough to make any sort of deal with.

OOC: Unintentional error when carrying over the pact. I apologize for my insolence. Is there a title you'd prefer?

 

[m.t.cicero]

OOC: Clarified my response.

 

[Lokki242]

To: Iran
From: India

There is but one legitimate government in India, and yet this treaty seems to imply that there are two. The fact that you fail to recognize this alone proves that Iran, once a friend to India, has turned its back on us and is no longer trustworthy enough to make any sort of deal with. We desire only one thing of Iran: recognize that the government of His Divine Majesty High Prince Khushwant Diwan is the one true legitimate government of India. We demand that you revoke your recognition of the revolting princes at once. Then perhaps we can begin to rebuild relations between Tehran and Mumbai.

We accept these terms, and the treaty has been altered accordingly. However, we still will remain neutral in the conflict.

The Second Tehran-Bombay Pact​

1. In the interest of preserving peace in the Middle Eastern region, the United Principalities of India and the Shahdom of Iran will sign a twenty year non-aggression pact.

2. If any nation is to attack either signatory without what is deemed a proper casus belli, the other signatory nation will respond by a declaration of war on the offending nation. Adding to this, Iran will continue to remain neutral in the civil war.

3. The United Principalities of India and the Shahdom of Iran will agree to a mutual lowering of tariffs on domestic goods.

The United Principalities of India and the Shahdom of Iran will assist each-other in both their domestic and military projects and designs, if assistance is directly asked for, unless that assistance counters neutrality in the civil war for Iran.

Signed, High Shahansha Nasir al-Din II, Sovereign of Iran
Signed, Mohammad Foroughi, Foreign Minister of Iran
Signed, Abdol Teymourtash, Economic Minister of Iran

 

[Circuit]

To: Iran, India
From: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

We are very pleased to see this pact signed between your nations. We want more than anything for peace to reign in the region. Likewise, we would like to remind the Indian government that the United Kingdom is very interested in signing a similar treaty with India ourselves, and we hope that India takes us up on our offer.

 

[m.t.cicero]

To: Iran
CC: Britain
From: India

As the government of India is currently fighting for the nation's survival, we will repeat that we desire no such agreements for now and only want your recognition as the one true legitimate government of India. We have no time for any superfluous agreements, and our treaty with Argentina was only meant to get them out of a conflict they had no business being in in the first place. With the state of international affairs constantly in flux, and our nation's survival at stake, we have no desire to entangle ourselves in any further knots of diplomacy than we must.

 

[Bair_the_Normal]

OOC: The fourth term still refers to the traitorous Allied Princes. Please rectify.

 

[Circuit]

OOC: Oh, I thought you had.

To: India
From: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

Should you agree to a non-aggression pact, the United Kingdom is willing to provide whatever is necessary for the Indian government to win its civil war, and will also provide for India's reconstruction, which is more than fair. That aside, though, your refusal to agree to such a pact is very troubling; a non-aggression pact with India's two most powerful neighbors can only promise to help the situation of the Indian government, not hurt it. Your argument for refusal to sign a non-aggression pact (which would solidify the legitimacy of the Indian government in the eyes of its neighbors) is utterly nonsensical, and we question whether your reason for your refusal to sign is what you say it is.

We will be paying very close attention to the situation.

 

[Luckymoose]

TO: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
FROM: Empire of Brazil

There is little reason for the Indian government to surrender to British terms unless the opposite of these pacts is war from London. Is that the case? There is nothing these pacts give the Indian government other than the threat of accident that breaks said pact and brings down the British military on the free Indian nation. Brazil kindly asks that Britain withdraw from forcing demands on the Indian government. We know you've done enough to see the rightful government of India harmed by funding Argentine expeditions there.

Seek the path of peace as Rio does. Go home.

 

[Circuit]

TO: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
FROM: Empire of Brazil

There is little reason for the Indian government to surrender to British terms unless the opposite of these pacts is war from London. Is that the case? There is nothing these pacts give the Indian government other than the threat of accident that breaks said pact and brings down the British military on the free Indian nation. Brazil kindly asks that Britain withdraw from forcing demands on the Indian government. We know you've done enough to see the rightful government of India harmed by funding Argentine expeditions there.

Seek the path of peace as Rio does. Go home.

To: Brazil
From: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

What have we said that was aggressive? We offered the Indian government a non-aggression pact for twenty years and offered to provide funding for them to not only win their civil war but also to reconstruct their nation after the war concludes, and not paltry funds either (at minimum, [100 EP a turn]). These are terms that Brazil has never offered anyone in its history, and all we ask is that India sign a non-aggression pact with its neighbors, that being Persia and the United Kingdom, both of whom border India directly. If India rejects such an olive branch (which is about to break under the weight of its olives), then we have every right to question why, especially when India has been inviting Russian military advisors and buying their equipment. We have every right to be alarmed.

 

[Luckymoose]

To: Brazil
From: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

What have we said that was aggressive? We offered the Indian government a non-aggression pact for twenty years and offered to provide funding for them to not only win their civil war but also to reconstruct their nation after the war concludes, and not paltry funds either (at minimum, [100 EP a turn]). These are terms that Brazil has never offered anyone in its history, and all we ask is that India sign a non-aggression pact with its neighbors, that being Persia and the United Kingdom, both of whom border India directly. If India rejects such an olive branch (which is about to break under the weight of its olives), then we have every right to question why, especially when India has been inviting Russian military advisors and buying their equipment. We have every right to be alarmed.

TO: United Kingdom
FROM: Brazil

India has every right to be concerned by your offer of friendship after the Argentine expedition. It is common knowledge that Argentine fighters and aid to anti-Federalists were backed by your government. This appears to Brazil to be an attempt to buy off the Indian government when they have refused your offers. Don't press the matter on them. They have sought their allies, those that have aided them against their enemies from the beginning, and it is unlikely they will accept offers by antagonistic states. It is better for everyone involved if bribery were not used on the people of India. It will only drive them against Britain all the more. These people are not ignorant of the world, give them space to breathe. Let them decide who they will align with. Let them choose their own future.

Brazil will continue to espouse Indian agency in India.

 

[TheLastJacobite]

To: Brazil
From: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

What have we said that was aggressive? We offered the Indian government a non-aggression pact for twenty years and offered to provide funding for them to not only win their civil war but also to reconstruct their nation after the war concludes, and not paltry funds either (at minimum, [100 EP a turn]). These are terms that Brazil has never offered anyone in its history, and all we ask is that India sign a non-aggression pact with its neighbors, that being Persia and the United Kingdom, both of whom border India directly. If India rejects such an olive branch (which is about to break under the weight of its olives), then we have every right to question why, especially when India has been inviting Russian military advisors and buying their equipment. We have every right to be alarmed.

To United Kingdom
From Russia

Why is it that when Britain sells arms to or make a pact with one of our neighbors, it is because Russia is a vicious warmonger who intimidates it's neighbors. But when India asks for our help in a civil war (in which your ally is actively aiding the rebels), it is cause for alarm?

 

[Circuit]

TO: United Kingdom
FROM: Brazil

India has every right to be concerned by your offer of friendship after the Argentine expedition. It is common knowledge that Argentine fighters and aid to anti-Federalists were backed by your government. This appears to Brazil to be an attempt to buy off the Indian government when they have refused your offers. Don't press the matter on them. They have sought their allies, those that have aided them against their enemies from the beginning, and it is unlikely they will accept offers by antagonistic states. It is better for everyone involved if bribery were not used on the people of India. It will only drive them against Britain all the more. These people are not ignorant of the world, give them space to breathe. Let them decide who they will align with. Let them choose their own future.

Brazil will continue to espouse Indian agency in India.

To: Brazil
From: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

We did what now? This "common knowledge" is news to us. Don't make up stories to support a completely irrational position. Just because we are Argentina's ally does not mean we dictate their foreign policy. Furthermore, we are not asking to dictate India's foreign policy; we are asking for a simple, 20-year non-aggression pact that permits them to do just about anything they want other than attack Persia or our colonies. Your protest makes as much sense as accusing a millionaire offering a cancer patient best-in-the-world medical care in exchange for the sick man not harming the millionaire of coercion. This is utter nonsense.

To: Russia
From: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

We did not say that Russia aiding India, in and of itself, is cause for alarm. But this information, in conjunction with India's refusal of a non-aggression pact on terms that are extremely favorable to them, is caused for alarm. To put this in perspective, we anticipate to pay India more than Brazil demanded from Spain for aiding Colombian rebels, which started the Great War, and for no reason at all. We have no obligation to do so. Why turn this down?

 

[Luckymoose]

TO: United Kingdom
FROM: Brazil

It is infuriating to us, as caring and charitable members of this world society, to see the United Kingdom fund war after war across the globe. They refused. So be it. There is no reason for the United Kingdom to continue to fund death to millions in Asia for a proxy conflict with Russia. How many millions more must die? China. Arabia. India. We are depressed by the very thought of British actions in India. To aid one side, then bribe the other to protect your own empire. It harms your credibility. The path forward is not one of aiding a side in a conflict. The war is over, the rightful Indian government has won. The path we must take, together as good shepherds of peace, is one of rebuilding.

Destruction cannot improve the lives of Indians.

 

[Circuit]

To: Brazil
From: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

Who are you to tell us not to fund the Indians? You sold them aeroplanes last year; doesn't that mean that you are also funding their conflict? Are you going to ask for your planes back now that Argentina has exited the war? Notice that not only have we offered to help them win the war (which will go on with or without us), but we have also offered to help them reconstruct; India could be more prosperous than it ever was. And it's not like the Indians have to use our funds to raise troops; if it eases Brazil's conscience, they can say the money goes to maintaining India's infrastructure or staffing army hospitals. You are not helping the Indians at all with sticking your nose where it doesn't belong (and yes, our nose belongs here, because India is directly adjacent to Indochina).

We also add that it doesn't make sense for India to reject our extremely generous offer after they sign a non-aggression pact with Argentina. We are offering more favorable terms than what they accepted from the nation that actually sent forces to India and fought them! Do shots need to be fired to get a non-aggression pact in this world? And it's not like what we are requesting is completely unrelated to India's non-aggression pact with Argentina. In order to prevent a treaty conflict for Argentina (who has a mutual-defense pact with the United Kingdom, per the Morgan-Smith Treaty), India should sign a non-aggression pact with the United Kingdom as well, and if the United Kingdom and India sign a non-aggression pact, then they might as well sign one with Iran, who also has close ties with the United Kingdom.

And why is it that Brazil can sign a non-aggression pact with Argentina (which, we might add, the United Kingdom highly praised, even though the terms were very favorable to Brazil rather than Argentina) but when we offer a non-aggression pact to India and willingly give them the upper hand in the proposed treaty, we are accused of being aggressors? This makes no sense.

Refusing a non-aggression pact on these terms is complete nonsense, unless there are some other motives that the Indian government has that we are not aware of. We of course are worried what those motives may be.

OOC:

Also, apologies for continually calling Iran Persia. Old habits die hard.

 

[Lokki242]

Iran finds India's rejection of friendahip and peace highly worrying. Iran and India were once close allies and friends, providing for each other whenever it was needed. Now, it seems, that India has become corrupted by its civil war, only living in distrust. We find ourselves sadly disappointed in their actions.

 

[Luckymoose]

To: Brazil
From: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

Who are you to tell us not to fund the Indians? You sold them aeroplanes last year; doesn't that mean that you are also funding their conflict? Are you going to ask for your planes back now that Argentina has exited the war?

TO: United Kingdom
FROM: Brazil

Selling planes is not the same as funding a war. Funding a war is giving money to one side or another, or supporting them with expeditionary forces. Brazil has done neither. India paid for their aircraft with no subsidy from Brazil.

 

[Circuit]

TO: United Kingdom
FROM: Brazil

Selling planes is not the same as funding a war. Funding a war is giving money to one side or another, or supporting them with expeditionary forces. Brazil has done neither. India paid for their aircraft with no subsidy from Brazil.

To: Brazil
From: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

Now there's an argument to tell St. Peter.

 

[Luckymoose]

To: Brazil
From: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

Now there's an argument to tell St. Peter.

TO: United Kingdom
FROM: Brazil

For a nation that spent the last twenty years killing millions around the globe for hopeless causes and greed, Britain talks big on the ways of God. If a man buys a gun it is not the manufacturer's concern what that man does with it. He may use it for self-defense, revenge, or suicide. These things are unknown. Much the same way selling a hungry soldier a loaf of bread will "fund" a war. Britain's diplomacy is confusing and illogical. Or was it not Britain that saw fit to arm rivals of not only Brazil, but of the USA, Japan, Germany, Spain, and Russia, too? Is the sale of weapons for defense against rebels funding a war when Britain arms other nations with the intent to destabilize regions?

We are content in our peace. Brazil has worked hard for it, and we will die to preserve it. But never again shall Britain speak so negatively of our concern. We care for all people of the world, it is the moralist way. We do not enslave hundreds of millions and slaughter them when they speak out. We do not pretend to be friends with innocent people after supporting the enemies that bombed their villages, killed their sons, and stole their land. Nay, we are not British.

Brazil puts pen to paper to save lives every day. Force is the last resort. We saved Jamaica without bloodshed. We brought the potential for lasting peace and an end to an arms race in South America without bloodshed. We are offering our advice to the British government. Remain out of this conflict and allow the Indians to approach you. If you have no guilt of your involvement, then why the offer of hundreds of EP?

We have no fear of the judgment of God, for He knows we've taken the path of peace.