And where did the United Nations go?

[WallShadow]

I seem to recall a few mentions of the UN amongst the threads, but has the fate, disposition, and locale of the United Nations officials and personnel ever been really clarified?

I mean we've got the big building on the East River in NYC, right across from the Roosevelt Island enclave and just couple of blocks east of Times Square. Did the diplomats just up and leave after TDM? How did they get out? Personal bodyguards or US-assigned security staff?

[weswood]

Hopefully the cannibals got them. :D

[Tegyrius]

I'd expect a lot of them were recalled (or bugged out without instructions from their respective governments) once tactical nukes started flying in Europe and NYC started looking like a strategic target.

- C.

[Jason Weiser]

RDF Sourcebook has something to say on the matter:

On page 3 it says...

"Relations between Israel and Syria deteriorated rapidly.A Demilitarized zone(DMZ)had been established in the Golan Heights following the '87 war.This DMZ was occupied by a UN Peacekeeping Force. When the UN General Assembly fell apart in June of 1995, these troops were left out on a limb."

So, one can assume once things begin to go down the long slide of doom in China culminating in the August invasion, the UN loses relevancy and ambassadorial staffs are called home until what's left is a Third World debating society that drifts away as the chances for a negotiated peace become slimmer and slimmer.

[Raellus]

I've had a couple of Aussie players who wanted to play Australian PCs in a Poland-based campaign create characters who were UN troops abandoned on Cyprus when the baloon went up that somehow made their way to central Europe. It was a bit of a stretch but considering the famous story of the Korean teenager that ended up in the Wermacht on the Normandy beaches just in time for D-Day, just about anything's possible.

If you're unfamiliar with the story, this Korean kid was press-ganged into a Japanese labor unitin around '38 or so. He was captured by the Soviets during their brief [Manchurian] border war with the Japanese army in '39. He was then pressed into service in the Red Army and subsequently captured by the Germans when they invaded the USSR in '41. He was then placed into a Wehrmacht Ost battalion and sent to France in '44, where he was subsequently captured by an Allied unit. What a trip!

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I've had a couple of Aussie players who wanted to play Australian PCs in a Poland-based campaign create characters who were UN troops abandoned on Cyprus when the baloon went up that somehow made their way to central Europe. It was a bit of a stretch but considering the famous story of the Korean teenager that ended up in the Wermacht on the Normandy beaches just in time for D-Day, just about anything's possible.

If you're unfamiliar with the story, this Korean kid was press-ganged into a Japanese labor unitin around '38 or so. He was captured by the Soviets during their brief [Manchurian] border war with the Japanese army in '39. He was then pressed into service in the Red Army and subsequently captured by the Germans when they invaded the USSR in '41. He was then placed into a Wehrmacht Ost battalion and sent to France in '44, where he was subsequently captured by an Allied unit. What a trip!

There were like 5 of them, an entire squad, but yeah, that was a real mind-scrambler. I wonder what became of them? I'd imagine if they made it back to Korea they were likely called up for service in '49 and ended up fighting for or against the US (again).

[Olefin]

If you look at the NATO vehicle guide it also mentions UN troops in Ceylon and shows a Canadian vehicle found there - which may imply some UN troops stayed on mission even after the UN fell apart.

[Targan]

As I recall, nearly every discussion we've had about the UN on this forum and its predecessor has ended with multiple posters engaging in highly derogatory comments about the (RL) UN and generally making the entire discussion so unpleasant that it's fizzled out or had to be curtailed by the mods or the administrator. I'd love to hear peoples' views on the fate of the UN and its staff and representatives in the Twilight War but I'm going to be deeply disappointed if this discussion goes the same way that all the others did.

Remember, we're discussing the UN and its demise in an alternate universe, not this one. Please try not to colour posts with any RL dislike or contempt of the UN on the part of posters here. Then we'll have a happy Targan :D

[Rainbow Six]

RDF Sourcebook has something to say on the matter:

On page 3 it says...

"Relations between Israel and Syria deteriorated rapidly.A Demilitarized zone(DMZ)had been established in the Golan Heights following the '87 war.This DMZ was occupied by a UN Peacekeeping Force. When the UN General Assembly fell apart in June of 1995, these troops were left out on a limb."

So, one can assume once things begin to go down the long slide of doom in China culminating in the August invasion, the UN loses relevancy and ambassadorial staffs are called home until what's left is a Third World debating society that drifts away as the chances for a negotiated peace become slimmer and slimmer.

Thanks for posting that. I knew there was a quote somewhere in one of the books to that affect, but the source of it has been bugging me for ages (I thought it was in Armies of the Night...)

The UN has a significant presence in Switzerland, so it's possible that a decision may have been taken to temporarily relocate the General Assembly from New York, which is in a belligerent nation, to Geneva, which is in a non belligerent, after the US entered the War (but presumably before the nuclear exchanges escalated to the point where such a move would not be logistically possible).

Are there any references to the UN in Armies of the Night?

[Ironside]

It went where the League of Nations went to . . . ?

[Legbreaker]

I could swear we discussed the UN in an earlier thread but for the life of me I can't find it! :(
I think there were a few options put forward for where it as an organisation might relocate to. Switzerland, France, and Australia were put forward as options I think. :confused:

Although the books indicate the UN basically fell apart, it's my opinion it simply lost relevancy and influence as conditions throughout the world grew worse. The entity itself may have lost a few members and certainly have been ignored on an increasing level, but I can't see any country simply withdrawing completely and not paying at least lip service to it (what's it really cost to have a representative or two in attendance?).

With the US entry into the war, pressure may have increased to move the UN's HQ to a neutral state - France, Switzerland and Australia (amongst others) would seem ideal. France and Switzerland however would loose most of their appeal once nukes began to be used - nobody wants to be around when there's the possibility of fallout. The UN may have relocated again, or for the first time to the southern hemisphere (can't think of any northern hemisphere countries which would have been perceived as safe).

[Rainbow Six]

I could swear we discussed the UN in an earlier thread but for the life of me I can't find it! :(
I think there were a few options put forward for where it as an organisation might relocate to. Switzerland, France, and Australia were put forward as options I think. :confused:

That rings a bell with me as well, although like you I can't find it which makes me wonder if we're getting mixed up the dicussion about where the Pope went(granted I haven't had an in depth hunt)

Although the books indicate the UN basically fell apart, it's my opinion it simply lost relevancy and influence as conditions throughout the world grew worse. The entity itself may have lost a few members and certainly have been ignored on an increasing level, but I can't see any country simply withdrawing completely and not paying at least lip service to it (what's it really cost to have a representative or two in attendance?).

I'd agree with that...

With the US entry into the war, pressure may have increased to move the UN's HQ to a neutral state - France, Switzerland and Australia (amongst others) would seem ideal. France and Switzerland however would loose most of their appeal once nukes began to be used - nobody wants to be around when there's the possibility of fallout. The UN may have relocated again, or for the first time to the southern hemisphere (can't think of any northern hemisphere countries which would have been perceived as safe).

I would favour Switzerland for any relocation prior to the first use of nukes. It's the only candidate that could be argued as having a long history of pure neutrality and there are already UN offices in situ (other possibilities might be Stockholm, Sweden or even Dublin, Ireland). After the nukes start flying it's probably debatable whether a further relocation to Australia would be logistically possible.

Ultimately I would go for the UN relocating from New York to Geneva in early 1997 and still being in situ in Geneva in the summer of 2000, although having absolutely no influence / relevancy (to borrow Leg's words) and probably precious few members.

[Legbreaker]

Most of the arguments regarding the Popes location apply equally well for the UN.
My guess is that the moment tac nukes start being used in Europe, the UN would up and move as fast as they possibly could. We are after all talking about politicians with a keen desire to keep their own butts as safe as possible and with the resources behind them to make it happen there and then.
Given the US didn't enter the war until late 1996, and nukes were used only 8? months later, my guess is that progress on relocating to Switzerland probably hadn't been completed. A rapid change in destination isn't too hard to imagine.

Perhaps New Zealand would be a good place to go since Australia was at war with Indonesia? New Zealand probably sends troops to Korea in support of the UN operations there too.

[Olefin]

South America could be a good place to go to as well - i.e. Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Ecuador all come to mind as places that are very unlikely nuke targets (Venezuela had to be hit for its oil)

If you want to relocate to the Pacific how about Tonga or if you want to stay in French territory Tahiti (I can see a lot of hands going up on the vote for relocation to Tahiti)

[Raellus]

South America could be a good place to go to as well - i.e. Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Ecuador all come to mind as places that are very unlikely nuke targets (Venezuela had to be hit for its oil)

Although I agree that these countries are unlikley to be nuked, South America has quite a few strategic targets worth considering. Ecuador has quite a few active oilfields on the Amazon side of the Andes. Montevideo (Uruguay) is a port city (Buenos Aires is on the other side of the River Plate). I've lived in both Ecuador and Uruguay. Chile has a lot of big active mines. I couldn't speak to Paraguay's strategic value.

[rcaf_777]

"Relations between Israel and Syria deteriorated rapidly.A Demilitarized zone(DMZ)had been established in the Golan Heights following the '87 war.This DMZ was occupied by a UN Peacekeeping Force. When the UN General Assembly fell apart in June of 1995, these troops were left out on a limb."


I think is would a shell of a force, Canada had a good size contingent on that UN mission mostly Supply and Manitenace folks, I could see any of the major nations that have troops on UN keeping them on mission once the bullets start flying in Europe between the super powers

[Olefin]

I dont think that South America is going to be that heavily damaged outside of the oil regions - for one what is written in the canon doesnt really make it sound like South America took much of anything outside of the oil producing areas of Venezuela.

Paraguay could indeed be a leading contender because there is no reason at all to hit the country - its resource poor and agrarian. However you would think any relocation would have to have some kind of reliable access to the sea.

[pmulcahy11b]

UN peacekeepers have always been essentially worthless for most purposes due to overly-restrictive ROEs. More and more, those ROEs will go out the window. Countries will also, as much as possible, try to get their troops home, especially in the lead-up to the war and early in the war. Others will be slaughtered, whether bravely or betrayed after "agreements" made with their adversaries. Some will melt into the countryside and become the nucleus for town and village defense force. Some will join the nearest friendly forces, whether they are from their home countries or not. Some will join the other side, thinking that at least they have some measure of protection there. Some will join local partisan forces. And of course, some will become marauders. But their role as UN peacekeepers will quickly end as general war begins;

[Legbreaker]

From the BYB.
Argentina/Brazil: The Argentinians attempted to reoccupy the Falklands/Malvinas after 1996, and the British were unable to spare more than a token force for the islands defence. Argentina itself withdrew when war broke out with Brazil in 1998, and a small scale exchange of low yield nuclear weapons between the two countries completed their slide into chaos. Central government in both countries has broken down, and both are now divided into semi-feudal territories ruled by military juntas or local community governments.

Other Nations:The interior of the Amazon is total anarchy, the coastal communities are largely insular, and the industrial cities are devastated. Peru is under martial law (cantonments/insular/terrorized) or the control of the Shining Path (cantonments/disputed, terrorized). Columbia, Ecuador, Chile, and the other nations are a mixture of organized, insular, terrorized, disputed, and anarchy.
Granted 2.x is slightly different from V1 in Europe, but V1 has next to no information on the world outside of the immediate area PCs are expected to be in (ie Europe and the US).
Virtually all of 2.x which covers the same points as V1 is cut and pasted (Germany is one of the few differences).
Therefore, it's not too much of a stretch to apply the 2.x details of other parts of the world to all versions. In that case it would seem South America is not a good choice for the UN to relocate to (Argentina in particular due to their attempted reoccupation of the Falklands - UN presence could be seen as international approval of their action).

[Olefin]

The nuclear war between Brazil and Argentina is one area of V2 that I ignore - the Mexican invasion of the US is something that stretched imagination enough as to Latin and South America. However that doesnt leave them un-nuked at all.

There are a bunch of refineries in both countries that most likely were on the nuke target list most likely - and one of them is in Buenos Aires itself. A couple in Colombia also make the magic over 100,000 bbl/d production number that usually results in a visit by a nuclear warhead in the game as does one in Peru.

Venezuela, of course, doesnt have a hope in heck.

Chile may actually be a good bet as to any UN location in SA - the way the country is structured it has great access to the sea and is easily defensible and thus could be structured and still very much an orderly society.

And it and Paraguay are both countries that had good strong militaries and police forces that could have maintained order (not necessarily over a whole country but most of it) and thus be seen as a place to try to keep the UN going, however tenuously, maybe even just even the disease control portion of its capabilities - i.e. a central place for finding cures for the various plagues that have struck since the war began (like the flu outbreak in Grenada)

[Jason Weiser]

Gotta go with Chile. Argentina will probably make a try for the Falklands again, just too much temptation there. The rest of South America is either going to get hit as oil production or port facility targets (which rules out Brazil), or just doesn't have the infrastructure to support something like the UN. Chile is the best bet. That's assuming somebody doesn't nuke Santiago on GP....:(

[Olefin]

Nice to see you have power again Jason - I saw your post about that.

[Legbreaker]

Although Argentina and Chile are playing nice now, it wasn't the case in the 80's and early 90's, and even as late as 2006 there were still issues - and that doesn't even include the dispute over Antarctica.
Border issues
In bilateral manner, both countries settled all the remaining disputes except Laguna del Desierto, which was decided by International Arbitration in 1994. The decision favoured Argentine claims.

According to a 1998 negotiation held in Buenos Aires, a 50 km (31 mi) section of the boundary in the Southern Patagonian Ice Field is still pending of mapping and demarcation according to the limits already settled by the 1881 treaty. In 2006 president Néstor Kirchner invited Chile to define the border, but Michelle Bachelet's government left the invitation unanswered. The same year, the Chilean government sent a note to Argentina complaining about Argentine tourism maps that showed a normal boundary in the Southern Patagonian Icefield with most of the area belonging to Argentina.
Would the UN really relocate to Chile given the ongoing and unresolved dispute with Argentina? How would Argentina respond to that?

[Olefin]

Leg, the UN stayed put in the US when we fought a war in Vietnam that wasnt sanctioned by the UN, when we invaded Grenada and Panama (neither of which were sanctioned by the UN) and did all sorts of interesting things since 9/11, most of which werent sanctioned by the UN.

If they moved every time a country had a border dispute with another country they would be operating out of trailers instead of a building.

And keep in mind - if Buenos Aires gets nuked for its refinery (highly likely) I dont see them being much of a threat to Chile - they will have enough problems just trying to keep their country together.

[Legbreaker]

Yes, the UN did indeed stay put, but there were no nukes used, and neither was there much threat of them.
In T2K, 1996-97 the situation is VERY different. The UN is sitting right in the heart of a big bullseye, and they know it. As an organisation struggling with relevancy, I just don't buy them moving to any country that is in conflict with any of it's neighbours.
It's far more likely in my opinion they'd go somewhere basically neutral such as New Zealand, Japan, Madagascar, Spain, Portugal, or even somewhere in Africa.

As for moving every time there's a border dispute, when was the last time the US was involved in one of them? :confused:

[Olefin]

we are still engaged in one border dispute today in Korea - I was meaning conflicts or threats of conflict

and the UN stayed in place on a major bullseye for 40 years during the Cold War - I forgot was it 50 or 60 nukes the Russians had targeted on NYC in the 1980's?

actually I like the one place I proposed in the Pacific - i.e. Tahiti

Its on neutral ground (French territory), good food supply, decent military presence (the French one), access to the sea for sure (since most communication will now be by ship of some sort), and you cant beat the climate

by the way I dont agree with a lot of what is in V2 for one very good reason - the butt kicking it gives the French which sounds much worse than what they took in V1

there is no way that they take that kind of hit from the Russians and not declare war on them - not without some kind of massive coup attempt by a lot of their military who would have thought their govt was insane to take that kind of hit and not go to war. At the very least some of their commanders and units would have probably said the heck with this and joined NATO to get payback, sort of like those who joined the Free French did when the rest of the French military surrendered in 1940.

I dont see a France as described in V2 being able to field in 1998 the forces they sent to the RDF - not when the entire southern part of their country is under mob domination and parts of it are in open revolt against the central government.

The FAR wouldnt be in Africa and the Middle East, it would be in Lyon and Corsica and Strassbourg.

[Legbreaker]

we are still engaged in one border dispute today in Korea - I was meaning conflicts or threats of conflict
That is a United Nations conflict, not a United States one.
The US are operating under UN authority.

and the UN stayed in place on a major bullseye for 40 years during the Cold War
Which didn't degenerate into a shooting war. In those few instances where tensions rose (the Cuban missile crisis for example), it's fairly certain UN reps would have been discretely finding somewhere else to go if they possibly could. It's notable that T2K gives the UN as an organisation, about 8 months before tactical nukes are used, and another few months after that before strategic strikes start. Plenty of time to see the once "cold" war go hot and do something about it.
IRL my guess is the UN probably has contingency plans in case it's New York HQ is nuked, which may be as simple as reconvening in one of multiple prearranged locations (exactly where depending on the global situation). I'm also guessing plans exist for a deliberate relocation in case of the threat of nuclear attack.

by the way I dont agree with a lot of what is in V2 for one very good reason - the butt kicking it gives the French which sounds much worse than what they took in V1
Please specify what the differences are so we all know. To my knowledge, 2.x is by and large simply cut and pasted from V1 with only relatively minor changes to update the back story to better match real life events (such as the German reunification). 2.x also extends the history backwards in time from the V1 start point of 1996 to 1989. http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=3109

[Olefin]

from V2.2

"France: Although ostensibly neutral in the war, France was still subjected to nuclear attacks to deny its port and oil refining facilities to NATO. Damage was largely confined to the coasts, but the resulting casualties were severe.

The riots and civil confusion caused by the war and by the hordes of refugees pouring across the borders forced the central government to close the borders, then occupy all territories west of the Rhine in order to prevent the country from being overwhelmed.

The military, to enforce the restrictions, has established a free-fire zone within 50 kilometers east of the Rhine, commonly called LaZoneMorte (the Dead Zone). The border is officially closed to non-French citizens (informally, bribes will get you in no matter what your origin if you have visible means of support). The border with Spain is also closed, but is permeable to smugglers.

Part of a thriving black market is dominated by the Union Corse (the Corsican criminal underworld). The central government has been forced to become increasingly repressive as conditions worsen, but life in most areas is onerous but tolerable. Some areas (the mountains, especially) are in open rebellion against the central government, and martial law is in effect almost everywhere.

The government of the southern departments is incredibly corrupt, largely because it is totally dominated by the Union Corse. Marseilles is the largest undamaged city, although it is in bad shape compared to its prewar condition. It represents the link between what remains of trade in Europe and the seaborne merchants of the eastern Mediterranean, and is totally under the control of the Corsicans.

Most of France is classified as organized (mostly by the French government/military, in some areas in the south by the Union Corse), with a few areas in the mountains disputed or independent. The area west of the Rhine River and east of the old border is a combination of terrorized, insular and cantonments. LaZone Morte is devastated"


V1 mentions nothing in any released module or article that I have seen (maybe you have one I havent seen in which case please tell me) about the southern part of the country being run by the Union Corse and that parts of the mountains are either disputed or independent.

The fact that Marseilles is the largest undamaged city and that it is totally dominated by the Corsicans appears nowhere that I have seen.

Also this line - Some areas (the mountains, especially) are in open rebellion against the central government, and martial law is in effect almost everywhere. - appears nowhere that I can find

As for "Although ostensibly neutral in the war, France was still subjected to nuclear attacks to deny its port and oil refining facilities to NATO. Damage was largely confined to the coasts, but the resulting casualties were severe."

In V1 the French and Belgians were described as hit the lightest and their casualties are not described as severe

If you have sections of your own country in rebellion why are you sending troops into Germany and the Netherlands and Africa and the Middle East? Why isnt the FAR being sent home instead of being sent to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Those are exactly who you need to use in situations like that - i.e. light elite troops.

V1 makes it sound like ports and naval bases and some refineries were hit but not to the level of severe casualties and a country where a big part of it is under the rule of the Mob.

V1 shows a pretty much intact country taking advantage of the war to re-establish its place in the world and its former colonies

V2 shows a country that cant even control its internal borders let alone reach out overseas to take over new ones.

at the least V2.2 means you would have to rewrite the RDF to show the worse state the French are in compared to V1. I dont see the France of V2.2 sending 48 top of the line fighter jets and most of the FAR to the Middle East with their own country in that kind of shape before they sent that force out.

(compared to the US which sent out a similar force but did it before the US was struck by the nukes in the main, not afterward as the French did)

[Targan]

I'm inclined to keep it nice and simple in any future campaigns I run - the UN facilities and staff in NYC relocate to Switzerland in '96 or '97 and following the nuclear exchanges of '97 and '98 the UN basically ceases to have any relevance anymore but what remains of its staff and resources are propped up by the Franco-Belgian Union for future political purposes.

[Graebarde]

Yes, the UN did indeed stay put, but there were no nukes used, and neither was there much threat of them.
In T2K, 1996-97 the situation is VERY different. The UN is sitting right in the heart of a big bullseye, and they know it. As an organisation struggling with relevancy, I just don't buy them moving to any country that is in conflict with any of it's neighbours.
It's far more likely in my opinion they'd go somewhere basically neutral such as New Zealand, Japan, Madagascar, Spain, Portugal, or even somewhere in Africa.

As for moving every time there's a border dispute, when was the last time the US was involved in one of them? :confused:

I could be sarcastic and say currently, but in reality it was about a hundred years ago.. in the same area we have problems now. But that's another story. Nuff said.

As to what became of the UN. Unless they pulled chocks early, they are doomed to the city. Perhaps some got home, but some perhaps died in NYC.. or other parts of the US if they tried to follow the flow of refugees. Who knows? It's your world.