An excellent look at Iran's economy and military!
How/Where do you find all these older photographs?
How/Where do you find all these older photographs?
- 2
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Just want to say, it's really great to see so many comments!
Although, in Iran's defense, they don't have a ton of great choices! Real life was also not one of Britain's most admirable moments, and I think it's safe to say Iran was wrongly invaded. I'd expect it from the Soviets, but the British were a bit disappointing.
Great to have you, and I hope you'll find it enjoyable
I wish I could have found a picture of it, but I only found the written description.
I suspect El Pip is right on this one. They did not have a steelworks at this point, but we shall explore that further if I can find enough information to make an interesting post about it. I also wonder if some of the issue was skilled labor as well. I'd imagine plenty of locals had laid bricks before, but I doubt many Iranians had built anything out of steel!
Perhaps channeling my China AAR a bit, but it really is interesting how similar their experiences of the 1800s were. Iran's was perhaps a bit less traumatic, but it certainly wasn't fun!
I'm glad you called that out, it really does help to make the game much more balanced rather than an Axis stomp like vanilla often is.
I agree that's the right move to make, although MOT could be a bit of a stretch!
I do plan to invest heavily in the Education techs to grow my research ability. Unfortunately, I'm far enough ahead where I don't think I can switch back to the IC buildup. I'd have to research the technology to unlock it, then build 1-2 IC at a time, so I'd maybe hit 13-14 IC. That is a significant increase, but I was also concerned about growing my military to cover my ridiculously long borders. Maybe I'll have to go back and try the IC strategy some other time.
It really is a huge improvement in my opinion, so props to TZoli for all that work!
And so we our setup and Iran is well on the path to joining the Evil Axis. Something are clearly just fated to be!
Although, in Iran's defense, they don't have a ton of great choices! Real life was also not one of Britain's most admirable moments, and I think it's safe to say Iran was wrongly invaded. I'd expect it from the Soviets, but the British were a bit disappointing.That is a good caveat, I perhaps oversimplified a bit, although I will say British policy on Iran was very confused beyond needing to protect India.
I will say enrollment numbers went up dramatically, so they must have trained a decent number of teachers. Although it is a very good point they might not have been well qualified or up to western standards overall. Interestingly though, being a teacher was one of the more popular jobs for the daughters of generals and bureaucrats which was quite the change from tradition in Iran.
Glad you enjoyed it! The real history is quite impressive, and I've enjoyed learning more about their struggles to modernize. It feels a bit like a Vic 2 AAR, but with tanks and HOI3 combat!
He certainly was the man Iran needed at the time, in my opinion, but I'll have to address his flaws at some point. It's just a matter of figuring out where to fit them in.
I've been quite impressed by how well Iran has been set up in game, especially for a country that wasn't directly involved in WWII.Good to see we managed to get that about right.
That is a very good assessment of the military. The other problem with the air force is I only have a base in Tehran which is too far from anything useful. If my bombers are in range, I've probably lost!
I'm glad you agree on that, and I'm very happy I get to help make some small improvements to HPP once again. I've also added a handful of leaders to the list that Paradox overlooked for some strange reason. I'd be more than happy to share that with you at some point.
I think that will work as well, although it will take a while to get close enough in alignment and relations.
Maybe I was playing on an older version of 3.3.3(e) because I swear 3.4.0 switched to a purely IC based calculation of international status. I swear my China game had requirements on brigades, ships, and planes as well.
That is a good point. As I mentioned to nuclearslurpee, I've played far enough ahead where I'm not sure I can do industrial, but I'm wondering if that would have been the right move. I guess we'll see how I do without.
A mixture of places honestly. Wikipedia has a surprisingly decent amount of pictures once I started looking up specific people or events, while Google image searches have also been helpful. I also stumbled on a couple of Iranian monarchist websites which have a serious love affair with the Pahlavis, but they have a ton of pictures available! Finally, I found an album from the early '50s that could almost pass as '30s/'40s except the quality is higher.
Thanks for checking it out, and I hope you continue to enjoy it!
- 3
- 1
This is a general point which a lot of players don't readily realize. Basically, if you invest in building a new unit of IC, you spend X amount of your existing IC for Y days. Once it is finished, you gain +1 IC which will pay for itself in X*Y days.
So if for example a new unit of IC will cost you 5 IC for 300 days to build, once it is built it will have paid for itself after 1500 days, or about 4 years. In practice this time is reduced somewhat as you improve your IC production and efficiency through techs, modifiers, laws, etc. over time, so a new unit of IC built throughout 1936 may end up paying for itself in only 3 years since that single unit of IC might actually provide 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, etc. IC with +5%, +10% etc. efficiency.
Basically, as a general rule if I expect to be fighting a war in 1941 I will build IC in 1936 and expect it to pay for itself by 1941. If you start the war in 1939 there is a good argument against this as having more military units in 1939 could help you win the war sooner, or suffer fewer casualties, etc. The only exception is in cases like Germany where you don't have the resources to pay for more IC usage than what you already get. As Italy, Japan, etc. you also can often gain a level of international status by building more IC which allows you to do more research or espionage with the extra LS points - this is unique to HPP of course but helps motivate IC building for more countries IMO.
- 5
- 1
That's a very good explanation, and now I'm wondering if I made the wrong decision . I think I'll stick with what I've done, but I'm now curious enough where I'll set up a second game where I focus on IC instead of the doctrine to start and see how much I can have, as well as how big of a military I can still get.
I seriously thought about IC, but I wasn't sure I'd have enough troops to hold it, so I'll be curious to see which way comes out better.
. I think I'll stick with what I've done, but I'm now curious enough where I'll set up a second game where I focus on IC instead of the doctrine to start and see how much I can have, as well as how big of a military I can still get.I seriously thought about IC, but I wasn't sure I'd have enough troops to hold it, so I'll be curious to see which way comes out better.
- 3
Nah. Reza Shah was flirting with the Nazis and either shared their unpleasant views or didn't do anything to stop those in his country who did. Gratefully accepting the gift of the "German Scientific Library" (it was 'racial science' and exactly as horrific as you would expect) is the more clear cut example of this.
If Reza wanted a neutral Iran then he had to be properly neutral, not try to keep all the benefits of relations with Germany while repeatedly winding up t the Allies. It was global war for the ultimate stakes or to put it more memeily "It was the time of f*ck around, it was the time of find out." Reza Shah did the first,so the second happened to Iran.
- 3
- 1
- 1
I've seen some mixed things on Reza Shah and Jews. As you mention, he tolerated a lot of nastiness and played nice with the Nazis' racial theories, but he was also one of the better Shahs in relations to the Jews. I'm not sure the validity of this, but he supposedly argued that the Nuremburg laws could not apply to Iranian Jews because they were Iranians/Aryans. That doesn't seem like the actions of someone that loathed the Jews. That doesn't mean he was perfect, he was still a product of his time and place, but I don't see him as especially nasty.
So his biggest failing was playing nice with Germany during WWII? Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland all did far worse than Iran in relation to Germany, and none of them ever got invaded.
The real reason Iran was invaded was because the Allies needed warm water access to the USSR, and Iran was the shortest and easiest route. When they didn't allow their neutrality to be overruled, the Allies invaded. As proof of this, the stated reason was because there were a few thousand Germans and Italians in the country. The Allies demanded the Shah deport them, he tried to negotiate, the British ignored him, and they invaded.
I'm not arguing that using Iran as a land bridge to support the Soviets was wrong, it was absolutely the right military decision. However, the Allies still blatantly invaded a neutral nation because it was more convenient to them.
I'm enjoying this discussion, so I hope this isn't coming off as overly argumentative.
- 3
- 1
- 1
That is such a low bar to clear I'm not sure it even qualifies as a bar.
I honestly don't know his personal views. But it is clear he more than happy to throw Jews under the bus to get better relations with Germany and it got very nasty by 1939/40, full on hate broadcasts and swastikas being daubbed on houses of anyone suspected of being Jewish.
I suspect he was somewhat like Mussolini in that regard, no particularly strong views either way on Jews but when it was politically advantageous he didn't condem the extremists, ignored the persecutions and never give the victims a second thought.
All those countries had the excuse that if they did not then they risked a German army marching into the country. And this was not even really an excuse, OKW had plans to invade all those countries should they ever not co-operate.
Iran was never even slightly under threat and had no pressing need to co-operate with Germany. Reza Shah just liked the cut of Hitler's gib, that's why he had a signed framed portrait of Adolf in pride of place in his palace. Or more seriously he was more obsessed with the great deals a desperate Germany was offering than living up to the actual deals he had with the countries right on his border.
Neutral is stretching things a bit, the issue was very much the fear that Iran was not neutral. The Iranians were convinced the Germans were going to rapidly defeat the Soviets, which in fairness quite a few people were in the Summer of 1941, and admitted as such. Therefore Reza did not negotiate, as late as 30th June in conversation in London the Iranian ambassador refused any 'drastic measure' or indeed any action at all against the German presence or any consideration of transport rights (of the sort that neutral Sweden was allowing).
I am enjoying it myself and I'm certainly treating this as just a fun discussion about an area of history that I don't often discuss.
I wouldn't deny that Iran was neutrial-ish, technically they hadn't actually done anything massively blatantly pro-German yet and with hindsight they probably wouldn't have. Once the Germans were stopped at the gates of Moscow and it became apparent the Germans were not going to be reaching the Iranian border imminently (or at all) Raza would probably have tearfully put away his signed picture of Adolf and gone back to being properly neutral.
But at the time no-one knew that. Britain was just coming of putting down the 1941 Iraqi coup and so were naturally suspicious about even a small number of Germans in key positions. Indeed the Indian government's main argument was not so much against Raza's German leanings but his regime's instability - the endemic corruption and poverty he was inflicting on the nation was, in their view, going to cause an uprising and could lead to a German-aligned coup attempt in Iran. I think they were projecting a bit from Iraq, but I can absolutely understand why they would.
That does actually lead to the darkly amusing fact that in the Iranian public's view was that Britain had been responsible for the elevation of Raza Shah and were still his main supporter. So London insisted that Raza had to abdicate after the invasion, so it was clear that all of his land seizures, corruption and general impoverishing of the country were indeed down to him and the 'German faction' and that London hadn't been behind it all.
Overall the invasion seems entirely justified given the circumstances and the situation inside Iran, even if it may not have lived up to the highest standards or moral justification. To blame it all on two super powers deciding to invade because it was convenient removes a lot of agency from Iran and it's leadership. It ignores the actions and choices of Raza Shah which meant that in the crucial weeks of mid-1941 no-one in London or Moscow trusted him, indeed they actively distrusted him. It also glosses over the fact that a majority of his own people refused to fight for him and indeed cheered when he abdicated, relieved that he was finally gone.
- 4
- 1
- 1
Maybe that's auspicious? Speaking of Victoria 2, I did manage to turn Persia into a great power for about two decades around the turn of the century. Couldn't quite hold on to it, though!
That would certainly be very welcome! Oh, and have you still got that of Chinese changes you were working on?
Yes, you still get a bit of extra leadership as you build up the branches of your armed forces. Doubtful whether that's ever going help Iran, though...
- 2
- 1
Considering how poor the Middle East is on this respect even now, I'd say it's actually not that low a bar.That is such a low bar to clear I'm not sure it even qualifies as a bar.
I had not seen that part, and that's clearly indefensible and disgusting.
I suspect you might be right on that, and that is certainly a major failing of his character.
It's not that hard to blame him on this score though. Germany was making great offers and was no threat at all to Iran while Russia and Britain had a long history of controlling their country.
I don't see how having sympathies for Germany takes away Iranian neutrality. Are you arguing it's OK to invade a country if they are inclined towards your enemy? As far as I can tell, they never really did anything to support Germany in WWII beyond humoring some Axis propaganda and giving moral support. It's not like they actually sabotaged Abadan, fought the Soviets, or anything else like that.
He reduced trade with the Germans to try and increase his neutrality months before the invasion. In the opening of the invasion, he offered to expel all the Germans and Italians if the Allies would stop, which they ignored, indicating that they didn't actually care about the Germans in Iran. It was just a convenient excuse to invade and carry out their larger strategic plan.
I'm glad of that, I'm also enjoying this.
That is definitely a lot of projection from the British, but I understand it. My point isn't that the British made the wrong strategic decision, but they violated an independent nation's neutrality for their own personal gain.
One interesting thing though is that they needed to replace Reza but allowed his son to take over. I suspect if Reza was so incredibly unpopular they would have ended the dynasty entirely. I will talk about Reza's land greed at some point in this AAR.
Another point to consider is that war was never declared, the Allies just invaded country. What could Iran have done to avoid an invasion? It seems like all they could have done was expel the foreigners and allow the Allies to ship material through their borders. How is it just to force a country to give up their sovereignty and neutrality, and invade them if they refuse? The Allies were supposed to be better than that, and I think that's why it's so disappointing the British came up with the plan.
Honestly I don't blame the Iranians for refusing to fight. They were going up against two of the strongest armies in the world and had been overwhelmed in an undeclared war. Nobody was going to help them, and all resistance would have done is unleash incredible suffering on the nation.
Persia is a really fun game in Vic 2, although I had a similar experience where I just couldn't keep up with major countries by the late game.
Honestly, I haven't gotten much done on the Chinese OOB yet, but I'll get it to you whenever I have a chance.
Probably not, but I'm glad you mentioned this.
- 2
- 2
Given the wider context of a global war and what had happened in the region, I think that specific invasion was justifiable though I admit it was a nasty business. I can obviously see a lot of circumstances where it wouldn't be OK, so I wouldn't try and argue a universal rule from this.
The counter-argument of course is that they never got a chance to do so, because of the invasion. I'd also suggest humouring the propaganda and giving moral support contributed to people thinking he was a potential German puppet and to the distrust of him and his regime. What Reza did mattered, he may not have had the raw military or economic power of the UK and USSR, but he could still have influence and shape events. It's just that he mostly shaped them towards making the invasion more likely.
No. Trade reduced because the British were blocking it by sea and because the Soviets were no longer willing to ship Iranian cargoes to Germany, for obvious reasons. There were even chats about what to do with the Iranian shipments that were still in transit inside Russia. Reza does not get any credit for this.
Because by that point no-one trusted him and the decision had been made more reliable leadership was needed. Had he been more trustworthy, if people believed he would stick to his deals and actually be neutral, then I don't think the invasion happens. Hell had he made that offer a couple of weeks earlier he might have saved himself.
The Soviets committed three armies to this, forces they really needed on the Eastern Front. At this point Kiev and Odessa have been pocketed and the Germans are not quite at the gates of Leningrad but they are very close. I think this speaks to the deep concerns they had about Iran's reliability and potential to go German. The most convenient option was in fact "Not invade at all", that they felt they had to divert scare troops and take the risk on an invasion speaks volumes to me.
Personal gain is an odd way of putting it. The main beneficiary was the Soviets, who could use the Persian Road to get supplies in and out, and of course the wider world who benefited from the Nazis not winning the war. When you remember those are the stakes, it's hard to get too upset about a corrupt Nazi sympathiser being forced of a throne he had himself seized by force.
I'm just going on the historic reports from the various people present, Reza was widely seen as unpopular, there were great crowds cheering his son and absolutely no protest or complaint about Reza going into exile.
As mentioned, not be seen as giving the Germans 'moral support', stick to deals not tear them up when they are no longer convenient, that sort of thing.
It serves the Greater Good, which is a nasty argument I know but war is a nasty business. Plus I fundamentally don't agree Reza Shah was neutral.
This was an Anglo-Soviet plan and if you keep looking at just Britain then it's always going to be a partial story.
I must admit I never thought the Allies were "better than that", the briefest look at the history of the Big Three and their actions before the war shows that. And I do mean all three, the US' Banana Wars of the 1920s and 30s were all about crushing the sovereignty of Central and Latin American countries and then invading them if they objected. The Allies may have had a stronger line in PR, but great power machinations and realpolitik don't change and are never particularly principled.
Plus everyone hated Reza Shah and were delighted when he was exiled.
Last edited:
- 4
- 1
I'm not sure if we're going to hash this out, and it doesn't really matter, but it seems like we're coming down to a philosophical difference that has plagued humanity for thousands of years and will for thousands more: do the ends justify the means? In this specific case, yes, I think they did because extra supplies to the USSR was essential to beat the Germans, and the Allies were very lenient with Iran (surprisingly in the Soviet's case). However, nothing Reza did really rises to justifying an invasion in my opinion; it seems like Iran was basically a colony that had stepped out of line and needed to get put back in its place. My issue is that a sovereign nation was invaded on the flimsiest of reasons, which is an immoral act. Fundamentally, I'm coming down on the ends don't justify the means side of things, especially since that viewpoint can be used to justify all kinds of horrible actions. Sure, regime-change in Iran worked out in 1941, but it didn't work so well in numerous other countries throughout the 20th century.
I think we can debate the specifics of this for time immemorial, so I'll just ask a few general questions and perhaps move this in a different direction if that's OK. Are you always OK with 'ends justifies the means', or is it more specific to this case? How do you judge whether the ends justified the means until after the fact?
Thanks for the discussion, and I hope you don't mind shifting in a more philosophical direction.
I think we can debate the specifics of this for time immemorial, so I'll just ask a few general questions and perhaps move this in a different direction if that's OK. Are you always OK with 'ends justifies the means', or is it more specific to this case? How do you judge whether the ends justified the means until after the fact?
Thanks for the discussion, and I hope you don't mind shifting in a more philosophical direction.
Thanks for following along!
- 2
- 2
While I too am enjoying following the discussion, I would candidly suggest moving it to either a PM thread or the Butterfly thread, both of which are significantly less likely to attract a moderator who finds the discussion "off-topic" as it becomes increasingly abstracted and away from the AAR at hand. In the latter case of course we can all enjoy the fruits of discussion and spam up the post count to boot, always a worthwhile endeavor.
- 2
- 2
- 1
Part 3: The Oil Concession
The Oil Concession
In 1901, William Knox d’Arcy, a rich British businessman, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffareddin Shah Qajar. d’Arcy received exclusive rights to search for oil for 60 years in an area covering most of Iran (excluding areas in Azerbaijan already given to Russia). In exchange, the Shah was given 20,000 pounds, shares in d’Arcy’s company, and 16% of any future profits.
William Knox d'Arcy
By 1908, significant time and money had been expended in the search for oil, and d’Arcy had sold most of his rights to the Burmah Oil Company due to a lack of funds. The new owners wished to pull out and salvage their investment by selling any remaining equipment. Fortunately for them, oil was found a few weeks after the plan to pull out, saving the company’s investment. In 1909, a new subsidiary was created, known as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC). Production did not take off until 1913, when the world’s largest oil refinery was opened in the port city of Abadan.
In the same year, APOC secured its most important customer: the British government. Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, desired to switch the Royal Navy’s ships from coal-fired to oil. Rather than purchasing from the Dutch Shell Company or Standard Oil, he chose to heavily invest in APOC. The British government bought 52.5% of APOC to acquire a controlling interest in the company.
This agreement was extremely unpopular in Iran because the Qajar Shahs largely used the revenues to enrich themselves rather than improving living conditions in Iran. In 1928, Reza Shah attempted to modify the terms of the agreement. The Shah believed the concession was no longer valid because it had been negotiated with a weak monarch under threat of British force, and there was no continuity of government within Iran (Note: Seems like a common claim throughout history!).
Abdolhossein Teymourtash was tasked with negotiating a new deal. He wanted to increase Iran’s share of the profits to 25%, a minimum payment of 2 shillings for each ton of oil produced, and reduce the area of the concession to southwestern Iran. Increasing their share would provide funding for more modernization efforts, while the minimum payment would guarantee some income regardless of oil price fluctuations. Finally, reducing the concession would allow new deals to be negotiated with foreign companies, providing further profits to the country.
The negotiations dragged on for several years with little progress but intensified in 1931. Due to fluctuations in oil prices and lingering effects of the Great Depression, Iran received less than one-fifth of the profits they had received in 1930. The Iranians believed that APOC was shortchanging them and hiding their profits to avoid paying. As proof, the Iranians claimed that APOC’s profits had decreased 36% from the previous year, but the payments to Iran decreased by 76%. This convinced Teymourtash that a deal was not close, and the British were not acting in good faith.
Reza Shah intervened in the negotiations, informing APOC that the concession had been canceled and there would be no further negotiations. The British government objected to this, bringing the case to the Permanent Court of International Justice. Edvard Benes, foreign minister of Czechoslovakia, was chosen to mediate and work toward an agreement.
The renewed negotiations initially made some progress but deadlocked once again. The British delegation was prepared to return home, but they decided to have a last-minute meeting with Reza Shah. In this meeting, the British offered to reduce the size of the concession, increase Iran’s share of profits to 21%, and pay four shillings for every ton of oil produced. Further, payments would never be less than 750,000 pounds while efforts would be made to hire more Iranians for technical positions in APOC. The Shah almost accepted the offer but obtained a few days to consider the matter more fully.
To assist his decision, the Shah headed to Abadan to tour the facilities and observe the conditions of the workers. He was greatly impressed by the size of the refinery, but he was outraged by the shanty town the workers lived in; the workers’ homes were made of rusted oil drums, the roads turned to mud whenever it rained, rats infested the streets, and flies swarmed everywhere. Workers were paid 50 cents every day, were almost never given a day off, and received no compensation if a workplace accident left them crippled. APOC had long promised they were going to build schools, a hospital, paved roads, and increase pay for the factory town, but it was clear these were false promises.
All negotiations were ended, permanently this time. Iran moved to nationalize APOC, creating the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). The British urged foreign nations not to buy Iranian oil in retaliation, hurting oil revenues substantially. Britain also withdrew all their citizens from Abadan, causing a sudden dearth of skilled workers. Some Europeans, chiefly Germans, Italians, and Swiss were brought in together with Americans, but they were nowhere near enough to replace the lost British expertise, causing production to drop as well. The pressure was increased as Britain stopped exporting tea, sugar, and steel to Iran, causing a sudden drop in government revenue and hampering modernization projects. Germany eagerly increased its trade with Iran, but they were not able to replace the British. Even worse, only a handful of countries dared to buy Iranian oil, risking the wrath of the British. However, the British were hurting as well, cutoff from their supply of cheap oil. This standoff continued for nearly two years.
In late 1935, the Shah surprised the British with a new offer meant to salvage relations while preserving Iran’s sovereignty. Iran would create the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) to take over APOC’s operations. APOC would be compensated using the funds from the sale while NIOC would supply APOC with at least 3 million tons of oil every year. Further, the NIOC’s board would be made up of three Iranians and four foreigners while all transactions would continue to be in pounds. The British accepted this face-saving offer, ending the economic standoff but souring relations between the two countries.
Beginning in 1936, Reza Shah decided to use his newly secured oil to improve relations with both Germany and Italy. These nations were not entirely welcome on the world stage due to their militarism and were hungry for oil to feed their growing war machines. In exchange, the Shah hoped to secure assistance in modernizing, including modern weapons, technical advisors, and various other supplies. Initial trade deals were soon negotiated, but they were envisioned as only the beginning. The groundwork for Reza Shah’s ‘oil diplomacy’ had been laid, but only time would tell on how effective it truly was…
Note: In real life, the Shah accepted the 1933 offer, seeing it as a win for Iran and providing much needed money for his modernization projects. This contributed to some of his unpopularity and created the impression that he was as self-centered as the Qajars or was a puppet of the British. In reality, I'm not sure he could have gotten a much better deal, but I moved the historical nationalization forward roughly 20 years and made it successful primarily to explain why in-game Iran has so much oil available to sell. It's hard to say whether this gambit would have worked in the 1930s because it was fairly close in 1953. In the Iranians favor, British foreign policy was fairly weak in the 1930s and a coup was unlikely since the military was absolutely loyal to the Shah, unlike Mossadegh in the '50s. On the other hand, Britain was the undisputed power in the Middle East, and I suspect they wouldn't have taken this from the Iranians. I think a much more elegant solution would be to add a strategic effect similar to the Chinese-German cooperation wherein Britain gets a boost to their oil and Iran gets a boost to their money in exchange. I don't know how to create new strategic effects, so I just went with what I've written.
Also, by WWII in OTL, living conditions in Abadan had greatly improved, although the workers were still poorly paid and living in shanties. Relative to the rest of Iran though, these could be very attractive jobs despite all the downsides. I see it as similar to modern sweat shops where they seem unthinkably awful to westerners but can be the best jobs in a region/country.
The ultimate goal of all this is to sell oil to Germany and Italy to improve relations and gain access to licensed units. I am receiving about 45 units of oil and plan to sell at least 10 to the British to simulate the oil agreement, leaving the rest for me to use as I see fit.
- 5
- 4
Thanks for the interesting set up. Looking forward to the stopwatch being started! Edit: which was just as I was posting this. Will look at the new chapter tomorrow.
- 3
Now that was just mean of me, to post an update right as you've caught up! Thanks for reading, and the stopwatch has started, although it is moving very slowly
- 1
- 1
- 1
So Iran is effectively open for business, and has a huge amount of refined oil to sell. That's going to interest pretty much everyone who isn't a colonial power themsevles, or the Soviet Union.
Lots to be done with such sway.
Lots to be done with such sway.
- 4
The Empire of Japan would like to make an oil purchase deal with Iran in exchange for vote support on Propositions... oh, sorry, wrong AAR.
An interesting update showing that the British are not to be trusted, I am sure there is some bias in the story being told but this is always the case and certainly it is good to be reminded that the British are not the unblemished heroes of world history. It does perhaps wrap up a bit neatly but this is probably necessary to explain the game conditions.
The big trick with supplying Germany or Italy will be that sooner or later they will go to war with Britain over something or other, and then oil shipments will be cut off by the Royal Navy. This leaves Iran with a few years of oil income to invest somehow but it will not be as reliable as hoped for.
An interesting update showing that the British are not to be trusted, I am sure there is some bias in the story being told but this is always the case and certainly it is good to be reminded that the British are not the unblemished heroes of world history. It does perhaps wrap up a bit neatly but this is probably necessary to explain the game conditions.
The big trick with supplying Germany or Italy will be that sooner or later they will go to war with Britain over something or other, and then oil shipments will be cut off by the Royal Navy. This leaves Iran with a few years of oil income to invest somehow but it will not be as reliable as hoped for.
- 3
- 2
- 1
Czechoslovakia trying to mediate between two other countries is kind of ironic. Were they even invited to the negotiations
?- 4
- 1
- 1