French involvement in the Europe after 2001.

[Abbott Shaull]

Okay with the threads that have been one going.

What would French do to help or not help their European neighbors after the fall of 2000?

Did they (still) have agent working in all level government in Germany and NATO Allies?

What is their view of the Soviets threat poses to them?

What is their view of the Pact Force threat poses to them, remember Italy is to their southeast?

What type of internal struggles would have increase since WWIII started, including issue within Belgium with parts of the nation opposing the Union?

How stable is the French-Belgium Union and how much support do they offer to outside of Europe, besides the situation that are handle in the Middle East Resource Guide?

Is the French Foreign Legion being expanded? How are the recruiting?

Just some Questions....

[Slappy]

I'll toss out some short answers to start a discussion:

1. Help for european neighbors. Likely not a lot in the short term. Internal security and reconstruction seem to be top priorities. Policy at the borders seems largely focused on refugee control. I could see them supporting some local measures near to France because having relatatively stable and friendly areas near the border makes their job easier. Something along the lines of a broad French aid for at least several years seems very unlikey as the French themselves would be unlikely to support it until their conditions improved.

2. French agents in NATO. Probably, but not that many. Networks degraded, communications problems, etc. Still, France can pay and that gets you agents.

3. View of Soviet Threat. Nil in my opinion. I don't see any credible land threat from the Soviet divisions in Eastern Germany. It's not clear they could take out the remaining NATO forces, much less an organized French army.

4. Pact forces. Largely the same. Italy isn't really a committed Pact member and not really set up for offensive action. That and the Alps provide a pretty effective natural barrier from potential Italian invasion. As an aside I think the Italians would fare better post 2k than most timelines give them credit for. They have almost no fighting in on their territory and limited nuking. I see them as a major player in the recovery.

5. Internal struggles. Not an expert, but the Basques could flare up. The flemmish are likely not pro-union but have little ability to argue.

Work calls, so that's all for now.

[pmulcahy11b]

Here's how I view the French after the Twilight War: like the Vulcans in Enterprise. Give everyone just enough help to make them barely useful to the French, but impossible to be rivals. Treat the rest of the world like a bunch of bad little kids instead of a world civilization that needs to get back on its feet in a big way.

[Slappy]

To continue my list:

6a. How stable is the Franco-Belgian Union? Pretty dang stable. The southern half of Belgium is quite pro-french. The other half is being occupied by the best remaining army in the world. Even if you had issues and wanted to start an uprising, being kicked out of the union means being kicked into the dead zone and one of the most dangerous areas in 2k, which is saying something. I think the relative choice of security v. possible political expression keeps Belgium, and just about anyone else, happily in for some time.

6b. French support for areas outside of the area covered in the RDF Guide. Very little in my opinion unless there is something directly to be gained. Examples of things to be gained are routes to ship oil and other commodities, access to raw materials, possible agricultural or technological resourses. Still neo-colonial would probably be too nice a description of the way they would pursue these ends to the prior poster's point. Just enough food and nice to make the locals useful.

7. Foreign Legion Recruiting? Why not, but you better be good. There are hundreds of thousands of very experienced soldiers who would be willing to do just about anything for French citizenship. Wouldn't you if you missed the Omega boat? The French can lay out pretty harsh terms in terms of reward for service and still get great soldiers looking for reliable food and shelter.

[Rainbow Six]

Some of my thoughts on this subject

1. Helping European neighbours. I don't for one moment imagine the French simply "helping" anyone for the sake of helping; I could forsee them becoming involved in various countries, but I think any such involvement would solely be to further French interests - as Paul said, helping other countries to reach a level where they can be of use to France.

For example, it's been mentioned on the Poland After Omega thread that the French would gain a long term benefit from helping the Poles as it would place a French ally on Germany's eastern border. Some of you may have noted that I've always advocated the French having a covert presence in the United Kingdom as well as it suits the French to keep the UK destabilised. I'd expect Germany to also be subject to French destablisation efforts. Yes, both the UK and Germany are in a pretty sorry state on 01 January 2001, but they will recover eventually - anything that the French can do to delay that recovery gives them more time to cement their position as a World Superpower.

I think in some areas you could see proxy warfare taking place, with factions armed / equipped by the French fighting factions supported by other countries. One example of that could be in Scotland if French backed Scottish separatists became engaged in combat with British Government troops. Likewise in Canada, withe the French supporting Quebecois against Canadian troops.

I think the French might also become involved with Catalonian Separatists as that would put a buffer state on the Franco Spanish border.

2. French agents. I think you'd still find numbers of French agents throughout Europe (and beyond). Fully agree with Slappy that comms will be unreliable, etc, but I think working for the French may be an attractive option for many - they can pay, not just in cash (gold?) but in goods, and ultimately can offer sanctuary in French territory - that may be a powerful recruiting tool for a would be agent in war torn Germany - work for the DGSE for a few years and you and your family will be given safe passage to France (of course, every time the agent tries to take the French up on that offer they say "one more mission...just a few months more". Incidentally, I always though the idea of an Israeli agent in Krakow was a bit far fetched...so I made her French and Head of the DGSE in Poland.

I also think there may be a fair number of French agents in North America, operating out of Quebec - I think it's possible that there would be a DGSE presence in both Colorado Springs and Omaha.

3. I agree with Slappy - the Soviets aren't going to pose much of a threat to the French Army any time soon. And the French will still have their own nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

4. Again, I agree with Slappy - I don't envisage the Italians and the French going at it in any big way; perhaps the occasional skirmish on the border between French troops and semi marauders encroaching on their territory, but nothing more than that - referring to my point above, if the Italians did get shirty the French still have nukes...

I actually think there's more mileage in the possibility of the French and the Italians forming some sort of alliance...I'm not suggesting that the Italians join the Franco Belgian Union, but I think it's possible there could be some trade between the French and the Italians.

5 / 6. Agree with Slappy again...the Flemish may not be pro FBU, but what are their options? Fight for independence from the most organised country in Europe? I think that would be out of the frying pan and into a very, very hot fire...

There may be some localised disturbances / rioting inside France, particularly I think in 1997 / 1998, but I'd expect the authorities to deal with them quite quickly and efficiently.

As for outside Europe, remember the French presence in Quebec gives them a foothold in North America, and there are also French territories in the Pacific and Going Home states that Senegal is under French control (I think?). So I think the French might be engaged in a small amount of Empire building, although again on the basis of how that can best serve France.

7. Expanding the Foreign Legion; yep, I think any experienced troops who find themselves in French territory might find a home in the Legion.

So, that's my take on the French...trying to establish themselves as the World's only Superpower, helped by the fact that they still have a nuclear arsenal, and offering limited assistance to other countries, but only when doing so best serves their own needs.

Cheers

[Raellus]

It would be irrational and dangerous but I can see some sort of Flemish underground starting up in the wake of union with France. I think that a de-facto French seizure of Belgium would be the straw that broke the camel's back for some Flemish Belgians. The more militant among them might form an underground of sorts or a separatist terrorist organization. I don't see them doing any more than ETA has done in Spain but they would be a nuisance.

Have any of you seen Children of Men? Great film, IMHO. I see the French having to deal with significant internal strife resulting from anti-refugee sentiments. There'd be loads of refugees from all over Europe, Africa, and the Middle East trying desperately to find sanctuary on French soil. This would undoubtedly worry and upset a lot of French citizens. I see some right-wing French nationalists extending anti-refugee sentiments/actions to anti-immigrant sentiment/actions (i.e. "if you're not racially French, get out of France!"). I can see riots much like the ones that occured a couple of years ago when French police shot and killed a Muslim boy in one of France's ethnic ghettos.

How would the French government deal with this? Who knows. But it would be a serious issue that they would have to deal with.

As for French involvement in the rest of Europe, I've posted a few times that I think that the French would actively court/pursue Poland as an eastern foil to help contain Germany and inhibit its revival. I think both the French and the Poles (the Polish, moreso) have an almost atavistic fear of Germany and anything either could do to keep Germany off balance would be done.

I see the French DGSE attempting to acquire the Black Madonna as a means to manipulate religious sentiment in Poland. There's that Catholic brotherhood thing to cultivate and exploit. An FFL direct action unit made up of men of Eastern European descent would be perfect for the job. I have a PC in my PoV campaign that ended up in Poland this way.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I see the French DGSE attempting to acquire the Black Madonna as a means to manipulate religious sentiment in Poland. There's that Catholic brotherhood thing to cultivate and exploit. An FFL direct action unit made up of men of Eastern European descent would be perfect for the job. I have a PC in my PoV campaign that ended up in Poland this way.

Remember France is/was largely Roman Catholic. The Pope was based in southern France for a time too. I can see them loving having the Pope move their base from Italy just because...

[Legbreaker]

Italy is in a bad way. There is no effective government beyond local areas.
The northern, industrialised part of the nation was heavily nuked according to Med Cruise and a flood of southbound refugees resulted.

Italy also is in no way part of or even allied with the Pact nations. Italy entered the war as a result of their treaty with Greece when Nato ran their blockade in an attempt to resupply Turkey in their local conflict.

France in my opinion has far too many problems of their own to worry much about what's happening more than a stones throw away. A few small teams and the odd individual operative is likely to be encountered from time to time, but the situation within France and it's client states is highly likely to occupy their attention for several years to come.

France, even though not actively involved in the war, was still nuked. Ports, industry, communications, etc are all sure to have been hit to deny them to the enemy. Both Nato and Pact missiles are likely to have been used with one side blaming the other to avoid the counterstrike - or perhaps the counterstrike was launched by France? The half dozen or so missiles were simply lost amongst the hundreds already being thrown about by the belligerants.

France also lost most of it's trading partners due to the war. Imports of food, fuel, parts, etc would have effectively ceased inflicting further hardship on the populace and further pressure on the military and security forces to keep control. With a great length of border to protect from Germany in the north all the way around to Spain to the south, not to mention the possiblity of boats from across the channel, just border protection alone would occupy almost all available forces. We know that the French have set up the Dead Zone along the Rhine extending 50 km into Germany - it's likely that a similar buffer would exist all around the country.

[Abbott Shaull]

No the Italians who fought in Austria and Southern Germany fought with the Pact forces. If you look through Going Home the Italian V Corps is listed with Pact forces, the Corps is based in Italy and unwilling to take offensive action. There another Division still in Austria whose due to the Division Commander beliefs is now conducting a partisan war against the Soviet units in Austria as it withdraws into Italy.

In a large part the Greeks and Italy had local alliance, once they entered the war due to their alliance and attack Germany, they had to enter in limited alliance even if it was uneasy one with Pact forces, otherwise Austria and Southern Germany would of been a three way brawl....

[Webstral]

France is going to do what France has always done: what is good for France. That's not a malediction. The French at least are honest about acting in their self-interest. "Anglo-American hypocrisy" pretends that what is good for the leading anglophone nations is the same as what is best for everyone.

How France's pursuit of her own interests translates into action in Europe in 2001 depends on the state of France in 2001. That's a whole other discussion.

Webstral

[Legbreaker]

Fought with yes, but allied? I think not.

It's a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and little more. There is likely to be some collaboration, but it probably wouldn't take much for sparks to fly.

WWIII is not one single conflict. It is really made up of numerous smaller conflicts which tend to overlap and include forces from all over the place. Taking the USSR for an example, they are at war with China, Nato, Iran, Romania, and, depending on which timeline you're looking at, the Ukraine. While their oposition in several places may include military forces from the one nation, these are still essentially seperate conflicts.

The "Twilight War" is a misnomer, Twilight Wars would be much more accurate.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Remember France is/was largely Roman Catholic. The Pope was based in southern France for a time too. I can see them loving having the Pope move their base from Italy just because...

Well, a pope was at Avignon for a while, but in opposition to another pope in Rome. One was under the thumb of the French king-- not something a pope would want to recall, IMO. Switzerland, home of the Pope's guard force, seems a more likely place to hide for a Pope.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

WWIII is not one single conflict. It is really made up of numerous smaller conflicts which tend to overlap and include forces from all over the place. Taking the USSR for an example, they are at war with China, Nato, Iran, Romania, and, depending on which timeline you're looking at, the Ukraine. While their oposition in several places may include military forces from the one nation, these are still essentially seperate conflicts.

Wow. WWII was much similar. There was the Italians in Africa, and else where in southeastern Europe. Germany against Poland, then France and England, then the evil communist in the Soviet Union. Japan against everyone in Asia and the Pacific who was close enough to hit except the Soviet through agreement that both honored until the War in Europe had finished and the Soviet had time to move troops east to fight there after a short series of skirmishes in which the Soviet convince their Japanese counter-part who was stronger. Also there was small conflict of Soviet against the Poles that some overlook and Soviets against Finland. There was also minor pissing war the Italian spilled over with UK due to Italy alliance with the Germans.

Before US entered the war against Japan and Germany and Italy declaring war with the US. The two major wars one in Europe and one in the Pacific/China were largely separate and didn't include other parties. There were also some of the other minor battles.

Basically once the US entered the war. The US and UK were the two where fighting on multiple fronts. With China fighting Japan and Soviets fighting Germany with them. With the UK ending up fighting many of the proxy wars due to the fact that many had Governments in Exile and the UK Armies were more realistically Allied/Commonwealth Armies.

Even the Spanish had sent an Division to fight against the Soviets. Many of the Germans Allies only had troops on the Soviet front.

One could argue that WWI was basically several small wars that happen at the same time. All three had basically several smaller wars that were fought just because the total break down of larger neighbors who went to war....

[Legbreaker]

The previous two wars involved theatres of conflict rather than being totally seperate. Italy and Germany (along with it's subject/occupied states such as Austria) were firm allies as was Japan (although nothing came of it).

In T2K the Italian conflict was essentially different in origin to that involving Nato in northern Europe. Nato was effectively fighting several wars at the same time against Pact forces and Greco-Italian forces. I'm not sure if the middle east could be considered a different war, or just a different theatre in regard to Nato - have to look closer at the causes behind it.

Something else to keep in mind that while some participants may feel they're only involved in one war, others may feel differently. For example, the Italians attacked Nato as a direct result of Nato running the Greek blockade on Turkey. Nato could argue they were delivering supplies to help Turkey against the Soviets and it was not intended to be used against Greece, therefore Italian agression was unwarranted - Nato sees Italy entering into the larger war on the side of the Soviets.

Italy on the other hand does not see themselves as entering a larger conflict and being associated with the Pact, but is only involved in a smaller scale "disagreement" involving Turkey, Greece, Nato and themselves - the WP has nothing to do with it and it's basically just coincidence the WP are involved in combat with the enemy of the Italians.

So, to sum up, WWIII is a very confusing, convoluted and extremely complex mess.

[Legbreaker]

Following on from my earlier post, Mediterranean Cruise actually states "the Greco-Turkish War of 1997".

This war was prompted by anti Greek riots in Cyprus "which the Cypriot army moved in to supress. In response to this, the Turkish army invaded Cyprus and sparked a war with Greece. At first, the war was limited to Cyprus, but soon expanded to the Balkans, where Greek army units moved against Turkish army units in Thrace. Caught between a major Warsaw Pact offensive in the north and the Greek offensive in the south, the Turkish position was soon rendered untenable, and Nato was forced to send help in the form of a convoy. Greek naval forces sank the convoy off Izmir. Nato responded with air strikes against Greek naval bases, and Greece declared war on the Nato countries on 1 July 1997."

As is mentioned elsewhere, Italy entered the war a day or so later in support of it's ally Greece.

Nowhere is it even implied that Greece, Italy and Albania (the other party in the alliance until Greece and Italy supported Serbia's claim for Kosovo instead) were in any way affiliated with the WP.

[headquarters]

All of the following is speculation - as in keep with this thread as a whole :

I dont see the French - the only effective goverment in Europe and the defacto power - as wanting to destabilize any neighbouring countries.

Having neighbours that are under control by warlords that are unstable or unpredictable would not be in Paris interest .

Installing goverments that they know will want o keep the French on their good side is of course a natural response.

Call it self serving to do so or just plain logical .The French will have the opportunity to support limited goverments in Germany,possibly Britain and certainly BeNeLux countries by 2000.

To argue that the French would do so as part of an evil scheme to gain supremacy ( that they already have in T2K) would be overlooking the fact that the economic development based on French support of material and arms would grow to ensure this on its own .No need for a nefarious plan , the neighbouring countries will grow to love the French and do their bidding like Western Europe after the Marshall plan.

I would think that the French would have programs to create "Govs" loyal to ( and supported by ) Paris as far as possible as a rule , but in cases like Britain where such moves might create tensions it would more a case of applying the political pressure needed to ensure that all sail the same course .

After all , France would not gain much from having violent and unstable neighbouring countries -even if the price was expansion of its borders to include French speaking areas abroad etc .

In the long run it would be much more efficient to develop and groom the now devestated countries around it to become viable markets for products and sources of raw materials.

Gaining the hegemony in this sector wiould be immensly more valuable than both Wallonia ( French speaking Belgium),Quebec, the overseas territories etc .

In short- "the Great Game " theories seem a tad outdated to me , I see France as making a bigger place for it self by developing other countries as far as it has the resources to (albeit -not to a level where they could challenge the defacto power of course ).

Much of the French populace will need employment in secondary or even tertiary sectors of the economy if France itself expects to remain stable without severe repression or revolts.This entails commerce -and war is bad for business.

In this respect I see more of a post WWII -American approach to Europe and the US after T2k and less of a divide and conquer style approach .

all imho .

[Mohoender]

My turn.

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

What would French do to help or not help their European neighbors after the fall of 2000?

I would not surprise everyone if I say not much but there will have exceptions. In France we love exceptions. What would be a rule without the thousands of exceptions/special cases comming with it? One of these exception could be applied to Catalonia. That region of Spain is in the process of gaining independence and France always had close ties with it. The other ones would be Cornwall, Wales and Scotland as the French would highly desire to weaken UK as much as possible (we already discussed that. Germany, Netherland, Spain and Italy would be ruled out.

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Did they (still) have agent working in all level government in Germany and NATO Allies?

Yes I would say so. As someone else said: because France still can pay. In addition, unlike US we love field agents and don't rely as much on electronics. Talking of that France retain the ability to send sattelites in Space.

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

What is their view of the Soviets threat poses to them?

What threat? First, it is gone. Second, France is more than ready to face it. Third, they are bloody communsits and that is something we perfectly understand. We have plenty of communist heroes ourselves. The most patriotic song after the "Marseillaise" is "The International". The communist came to existence within the second international that was established in Paris in 1889. More important, France still has plenty of nukes and the power to wipe out any potential surviving ennemy. What would not surprise me, however, is to have the French more concern about a potential US threat. After all these guys whatch Disney and play with nuclear bombs. Aren't they anything but immature kids?

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

What is their view of the Pact Force threat poses to them, remember Italy is to their southeast?

Again what threat? Italy being a threat (except for soccer), give me a break. Moreover we like Pasta.

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

What type of internal struggles would have increase since WWIII started, including issue within Belgium with parts of the nation opposing the Union?

All! The Basque region will be in chaos. Britanny will pause a problem but nothing we can't deal with. Mountainous regions being partially independent is effectively possible. I don't believe in Corsica going away but the "Union Corse" is a great idea. However, the Island should be autonomous with the constitution of Pascal Paoli completing the French one. Moreover, the Corsicans could be heavily involved in Italy, challenging the Italian Mafias at least in some regions. In Belgium, the Flemmish should be a serious threat with people engaged in regular sabotage and the French Gendarmerie (with units made up almost entirely of Belgian Wallon) conducting heavy anti-terrorists action much in the way of these conducted by Nazi Germany during WWII. (I wouldn't be surprised to see a few concentration camps around especially if they are presented as refugee camps)

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

How stable is the French-Belgium Union and how much support do they offer to outside of Europe, besides the situation that are handle in the Middle East Resource Guide?

Fairly Stable at least when it comes to Brussel Capital, the Wallon region, Luxembourg and the Saarland (Yes I include it). In this union, you'll also have to include Monaco Andorra and may be the Anglo-British Islands. Switzerland should be/become a partner and this is also true for Ireland. Tunisia could have joined the Union. Some African countries would have become almost true protectorate: Senegal, Djibouti, Cameroon, Gabon and may be Benin (Togo is in question). French garrisons there would have been increased and French troops would be heavily involved in internal security within these countries. Quebec would be supported but probably not too openly (why would you want to be at war with NATO?). Cuba could be helped out (also not too openly) as it would be very nice to kick dying US in its own backyard when it cannot hit back. Limited relations should be established with Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and Thailand. Finally, you can expect the French to be involved in some kind of covert operations in Poland and in Serbia.

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Is the French Foreign Legion being expanded? How are the recruiting?

Yes! It should be back to it's pre-1962 level of 40.000 (actually it is around 7.000). Many disbanded units would be recreated. It would recruit as always with a full respect of its tradition. Anyone can enlist but, as someone says, that should be hard. Women can enlist but, so far, none ever passed the selection tests (no risk of being sued for discrimination). A French can enlist but has to declare that he is not a French citizen.

Legionnaires code of honour (I suspect article 6 to change slightly)
Article 1: Legionnaire, you are a volunteer, serving France with honour and fidelity.
Article 2: Each legionnaire is your brother in arms whatever his nationality, his race or his religion might be. You show to him the same close solidarity that links the members of the same family.
Article 3: You respect your traditions and your superiors. Discipline and friendship are your strengths. Courage and honesty are your virtues.
Article 4: You are proud of being a legionnaire. You are always well mannered and smart. Your behaviour is of the best. You are always modest and your quarters are always clean and tidy.
Article 5: You are an elite soldier who is rigorous with himself. You consider your weapon as your most precious possession. You constantly maintain your physical fitness.
Article 6: Your mission is sacred. It is carried out until the end, in respect of the law, the customs of war International Conventions, if needs be, at the risk of your own life.
Article 7: In combat you act without passion or hatred. You respect vanquished enemies. You never surrender your dead, your wounded, or your weapons.

Article 7 is a reference to the most important of their tradition: Camerone. "Camerone 1863" is found on all flags from the Legion along with "Nation and Fidelity". As far as I know they have always been faithful to this.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by headquarters

Call it self serving to do so or just plain logical .The French will have the opportunity to support limited goverments in Germany,possibly Britain and certainly BeNeLux countries by 2000.

Benelux is under French control and it is at war with the Netherlands (that rules it out). I agree for Britain and that's why I see the French helping Wales, Scotland and may be Cornwall. Germany is more likely and France has every interest in building ties with Bavaria. I think it would do it at the Landers level. Having a stabilized but divided germany would be in its best interest (equally true for Britain)

Originally Posted by headquarters

To argue that the French would do so as part of an evil scheme to gain supremacy ( that they already have in T2K) would be overlooking the fact that the economic development based on French support of material and arms would grow to ensure this on its own .No need for a nefarious plan , the neighbouring countries will grow to love the French and do their bidding like Western Europe after the Marshall plan.

I like that idea but you forgot one thing. US was the victor and was seen as a liberator. France is not yet ready to do so but it could think of launching a military action to liberate at least Austria, Germany, Poland and the Czech. No real reason to intervene in Italy and it might be met with distrust in Spain. That should be wise.

Originally Posted by headquarters

I would think that the French would have programs to create "Govs" loyal to ( and supported by ) Paris as far as possible as a rule , but in cases like Britain where such moves might create tensions it would more a case of applying the political pressure needed to ensure that all sail the same course.

Agree

Originally Posted by headquarters

After all , France would not gain much from having violent and unstable neighbouring countries -even if the price was expansion of its borders to include French speaking areas abroad etc.

Agree

Originally Posted by headquarters

In the long run it would be much more efficient to develop and groom the now devestated countries around it to become viable markets for products and sources of raw materials.

Not without securing them first. Otherwise, it would be a waste. When US is gone, France might fill-in the vacuum (after going home)

Originally Posted by headquarters

In short- "the Great Game " theories seem a tad outdated to me , I see France as making a bigger place for it self by developing other countries as far as it has the resources to (albeit -not to a level where they could challenge the defacto power of course ).

Agree but it would have to bring them security first. A treaty with the Soviet would help greatly.

Originally Posted by headquarters

Much of the French populace will need employment in secondary or even tertiary sectors of the economy if France itself expects to remain stable without severe repression or revolts.This entails commerce -and war is bad for business.

No, they will be shipped back to the countryside to work in the fields.

Originally Posted by headquarters

In this respect I see more of a post WWII -American approach to Europe and the US after T2k and less of a divide and conquer style approach .

Agree

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Quebec would be supported but probably not too openly (why would you want to be at war with NATO?). .

Surely France chose to go to war with NATO when it invaded two NATO members (West Germany and the Netherlands) at the start of 1998?

I've always presumed that the fact that the NATO powers were somewhat pre occupied with fighting the Warsaw Pact at the time meant that other partners in the alliance, primarily the United Kingdom and the United States, chose to turn the proverbial blind eye to this move by the French (perhaps after some top secret negotiations between the various Governments).

I've often thought the French might use their presence in Quebec to influence similar negotiations between the French and US Governments (Milgov or Civgov). For example, the French might be willing to supply Milgov with oil on the condition that Milgov recognised the Quebec Separatists as the legitimate government of Quebec?

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

WWIII is not one single conflict. It is really made up of numerous smaller conflicts which tend to overlap and include forces from all over the place. Taking the USSR for an example, they are at war with China, Nato, Iran, Romania, and, depending on which timeline you're looking at, the Ukraine. While their oposition in several places may include military forces from the one nation, these are still essentially seperate conflicts.

The "Twilight War" is a misnomer, Twilight Wars would be much more accurate.

Franco remarked to an American official that he saw World War II as three separate wars while the conflict was still raging. He saw a Germany v the West war in which he was neutral, a Germany v the USSR war in which he was on Germany's side, and a US v Japan war in which he favored the US. He claimed to see the United States as defending Spanish civilization in the Philippines.

Webstral

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Nowhere is it even implied that Greece, Italy and Albania (the other party in the alliance until Greece and Italy supported Serbia's claim for Kosovo instead) were in any way affiliated with the WP.

Doesn't Italy invade Austria at some point, working in concert with the Czechs? (in the v1.0 timeline)

It makes sense that the two armies would cooperate actively and/or coordinate their efforts. Although this wouldn't make Italy part of the WTO/PACT, it would be an alliance of sorts, would it not?

[headquarters]

he was a crazy fascist killer megalomaniac..

Originally Posted by Webstral

Franco remarked to an American official that he saw World War II as three separate wars while the conflict was still raging. He saw a Germany v the West war in which he was neutral, a Germany v the USSR war in which he was on Germany's side, and a US v Japan war in which he favored the US. He claimed to see the United States as defending Spanish civilization in the Philippines.

Webstral

[kato13]

Originally Posted by headquarters

he was a crazy fascist killer megalomaniac..

And he is "still dead" (very inside joke for American SNL fans)

[Adm.Lee]

I'm thinking that Germany & Netherlands maybe the only neighbors the French should want to keep divided in the near future. I don't see them picking on the British, Italians or Spanish while they are down. (We know from 2300AD that Germany is divided for 200+ years.)

[pmulcahy11b]

I never really fleshed it out, but part of my T2K world always had Luxembourg as a hotbed of anti-French partisan activity. I've always had this kind of World War 2-ish image -- a French unit makes their way down a street in Luxembourg, not knowing there's a gun barrel in every window about to open up on them...

I'd like to hear everyone's opinions about how accurate the idea of the Luxembourg partisans might be from everyone.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Surely France chose to go to war with NATO when it invaded two NATO members (West Germany and the Netherlands) at the start of 1998?

I've always presumed that the fact that the NATO powers were somewhat pre occupied with fighting the Warsaw Pact at the time meant that other partners in the alliance, primarily the United Kingdom and the United States, chose to turn the proverbial blind eye to this move by the French (perhaps after some top secret negotiations between the various Governments).

I've often thought the French might use their presence in Quebec to influence similar negotiations between the French and US Governments (Milgov or Civgov). For example, the French might be willing to supply Milgov with oil on the condition that Milgov recognised the Quebec Separatists as the legitimate government of Quebec?

I agree and that's what I mean when saying that France doesn't want to go at war with NATO (the blind eye or eye left at all).

I disagree with your view on Quebec for one simple reason: at that time France can impose it's will to any other power whenever it wants. If it doesn't do it, it can only be explained through popular pressure. France is the only country left with a significant number of nukes and it can oblitare either what is left of Russia or the US. That's a hell of an argument. It also has a surviving intact and expending navy (the Richelieu came to existance) and can cut US troops from supply at will anywhere in the world. The main weakness of France is an insufficient population.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I never really fleshed it out, but part of my T2K world always had Luxembourg as a hotbed of anti-French partisan activity. I've always had this kind of World War 2-ish image -- a French unit makes their way down a street in Luxembourg, not knowing there's a gun barrel in every window about to open up on them...

I'd like to hear everyone's opinions about how accurate the idea of the Luxembourg partisans might be from everyone.

Why not but not too strong. Luxembourg doesn't have any animosity with the French and you don't shoot at the guy who are putting their money into your banks (especially true for the Belgian).

Once, my uncle came to check on his luxembourg account, at the next counter was his tax controller also checking at his own account.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Why not but not too strong. Luxembourg doesn't have any animosity with the French and you don't shoot at the guy who are putting their money into your banks (especially true for the Belgian).

Once, my uncle came to check on his luxembourg account, at the next counter was his tax controller also checking at his own account.

That is one of the few things I did look at -- then thought, "In T2K, what banks are there in Luxembourg?"

And I just thought about something else -- how much gold reserves are in Luxembourg?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

The main weakness of France is an insufficient population.

You know, I read that and thought that would be a good reason that France would no longer be a great power in Traveller: 2300 -- but not in T2K. By 2300, the rest of the world might have gotten real tired of having France push them around (unfortunately, sort of like other countries are getting real tired of being pushed around by the US these days). All great powers eventually fall or fade away -- usually because they've gotten too big for their britches. In T2K, France is the biggest kid on the block -- by 2300, the rest of the kids on the block might have gotten together and beaten the crap out of France.

[John Farson]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Italy is in a bad way. There is no effective government beyond local areas.
The northern, industrialised part of the nation was heavily nuked according to Med Cruise and a flood of southbound refugees resulted.

Italy also is in no way part of or even allied with the Pact nations. Italy entered the war as a result of their treaty with Greece when Nato ran their blockade in an attempt to resupply Turkey in their local conflict.

France in my opinion has far too many problems of their own to worry much about what's happening more than a stones throw away. A few small teams and the odd individual operative is likely to be encountered from time to time, but the situation within France and it's client states is highly likely to occupy their attention for several years to come.

France, even though not actively involved in the war, was still nuked. Ports, industry, communications, etc are all sure to have been hit to deny them to the enemy. Both Nato and Pact missiles are likely to have been used with one side blaming the other to avoid the counterstrike - or perhaps the counterstrike was launched by France? The half dozen or so missiles were simply lost amongst the hundreds already being thrown about by the belligerants.

France also lost most of it's trading partners due to the war. Imports of food, fuel, parts, etc would have effectively ceased inflicting further hardship on the populace and further pressure on the military and security forces to keep control. With a great length of border to protect from Germany in the north all the way around to Spain to the south, not to mention the possiblity of boats from across the channel, just border protection alone would occupy almost all available forces. We know that the French have set up the Dead Zone along the Rhine extending 50 km into Germany - it's likely that a similar buffer would exist all around the country.

I concur. To me, people tend to overemphasise France's role and power in the post-nuclear exchange world of the Twilight War. Yes, France is the strongest power left, or rather, it is the only intact power left. Let's look at the other powers:

USA: nuked, in anarchy, starving
USSR/Russia: ditto
China: ditto
UK: ditto
etc.
etc.

So in this kind of environment, it doesn't take much to be the strongest power around. But what good does being strongest do for France in a nuked out world? Or to put it another way, France is the tallest midget in a roomful of midgets. Yes, France is better off than the rest, but in the world of "Twilight 2000" better is a relative term. I personally think that by 2001 several million people have died in France as a result of the nuclear attacks, radiation, famines and epidemics. I'll post here what the Finnish Sourcebook has to say about France (I'll eventually post the World Situation in 2000 section when I get to it):
************************************************** *******
"Despite her neutrality, France suffered from nuclear strikes directed at her ports and oil industry in order to deny them to NATO. The destruction was mostly limited to the coasts, but the number of deaths was great. Riots and instability caused by the war and ensuing refugee crisis led first to the closing of the borders and then to the occupation of the entire west bank of the Rhine. Because of this the Army has created a freefire Dead Zone (La Zone Morte), where anyone who is caught moving can be freely killed. The border is officially closed to all but French citizens, although in practice one can bribe one's way in, provided that you have a useful profession that you can support yourself with.

The Franco-Spanish border is also closed, but smuggling is rife. The black market is run by the Union Corse (a Corsican organised crime syndicate). With the worsening of the situation the French government has had to take tougher measures, and as a result life in most areas is hard but bearable.

In some areas (particularly mountainous ones) there is open rebellion against the government and martial law is in place almost everywhere. The governments of the southern French departments are unbelievably corrupt because they are controlled by the Union Corse. Marseille is the largest undamaged city, though it is in bad shape compared to the pre-war era. It represents the remains of trade between the merchants of Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean and is completely under the control of the Corsicans.

Most of France is organized (mostly due to the French government/Army though the Union Corse functions similarly in southern France). A few mountainous areas are disputed or independent . Terrorised and isolated areas as well as military cantonments are to be found in the west bank of the Rhine. La Zone Morte is destroyed.
************************************************** ********
So with all these issues, I'd say France has its work cut out just trying to keep things together, never mind going off on foreign adventures except for the aforementioned small teams and individual agents. I can see the French in the Middle-East because of the oil, but I don't see them doing much in Africa. The only thing I could come up with is setting up transportation nodes in the African coast, to safeguard the Middle-East oil shipments from pirates and the like. But stuff like interfering in Canada, or South America, or Asia... I dunno. I just don't think they have the resources for that.