Version 1.0 Setting Background

[Mahatatain]

I’m in the process of setting up a new face to face T2k campaign and I’m considering using the original version 1.0 setting background (the one which starts in 1995) rather than the version 2.2 setting that incorporates the collapse of the Soviet Union. My question is therefore whether anyone has had a go at filling in the v1.0 background for the years 1985 to 1994 to work out which real events fit in this timeline and, more importantly, which don’t.

The most obvious events (off the top of my head) that won’t have occurred are:
- the collapse of the Soviet Union and other communist regimes
- the re-unification of Germany
- the end of the Cold War
- the reduction in the size of the British Army

I’m sure that there will be more than this so I was wondering if anyone had thought about this already and had written something up on it?

Thanks for any constructive thoughts and comments.

Mahatatain.

[Rainbow Six]

Off the top of my head two "debatable" events are

1. The first Gulf War (I think Webstral put together a piece a while back that presented a scenario where GW1 still took place, but you have to bear in mind that from a UK perspective at least all the tanks got taken from Germany which seriously reduced the strength of the BAOR at the time - debatable whether that would have happened with an ongoing Cold War.

2. The fall of apartheid. There have been a couple of threads about South Africa before where this has come up. IIRC the white South African Government first started talking to the ANC during the second half of the 80's, but it's debatable where things might have gone if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed (one of the major fears of the white Government was that the ANC would turn the country into a communist state - to a certain extent the collapse of the Soviet Union rendered many of those fears null and void).

[B.T.]

Two more "debatables":

1. The situation in former Yugoslavia: Had it happened, with the cold war still ongoing? Had it happened with another outcome?

2. "Restore Hope" and the whole Somalia affair, including the "Black Hawk Down" scenario.

Both situations affected military doctrines and, in some instances, international military colaboration.

[Mahatatain]

Thanks for the other suggestions of things to resolve.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

1. The first Gulf War (I think Webstral put together a piece a while back that presented a scenario where GW1 still took place, but you have to bear in mind that from a UK perspective at least all the tanks got taken from Germany which seriously reduced the strength of the BAOR at the time - debatable whether that would have happened with an ongoing Cold War.

Well from a British perspective without the end of the Cold War I think that you can argue that the cuts that occurred as part of "Options for Change" wouldn't have happened so Gulf War 1 is probably still possible but with assets from the UK rather than BAOR. It's an interesting one to work out though!

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

2. The fall of apartheid. There have been a couple of threads about South Africa before where this has come up. IIRC the white South African Government first started talking to the ANC during the second half of the 80's, but it's debatable where things might have gone if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed (one of the major fears of the white Government was that the ANC would turn the country into a communist state - to a certain extent the collapse of the Soviet Union rendered many of those fears null and void).

I'm really not sure about this one and you're quite possibly right that the white South African government wouldn't have made a deal with the ANC if the Soviet Union is still in existence and is still a major backer of communism around the world. I've got this vague memory of reports of the ANC being covertly backed by the Soviet Union but I have no idea whether that's actually true or not.

This is certainly an interesting one to include though as it further illustrates how different an alternative history the v1.0 background is.

Originally Posted by B.T.

1. The situation in former Yugoslavia: Had it happened, with the cold war still ongoing? Had it happened with another outcome?

I don't think that Yugoslavia can have collapsed for the v1.0 background to work as it still exists as a country in the background. I think that the collapse can provide some very useful insight for the different factions if you set a campaign there though.

Originally Posted by B.T.

2. "Restore Hope" and the whole Somalia affair, including the "Black Hawk Down" scenario.

Personally I like this as a back story event for American soldiers from the relevant units so I will try to leave this in.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Mahatatain

Personally I like this as a back story event for American soldiers from the relevant units so I will try to leave this in.

Restore Hope and the black hawk down scenario likely wouldn't have happened; Somalia was propped up by the USSR (Said Barre was leader of the SRSP) for a time, and without them being out of business, in '93 Somalia would have not gotten to the stage it was at. At the very least the USSR wouldn't have let the UN come in, then US "peacekeepers".

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Mahatatain

Thanks for the other suggestions of things to resolve.


Well from a British perspective without the end of the Cold War I think that you can argue that the cuts that occurred as part of "Options for Change" wouldn't have happened so Gulf War 1 is probably still possible but with assets from the UK rather than BAOR. It's an interesting one to work out though!

Not sure if the lack of Options would have made that much difference to be honest...I don't think its effects began to be really felt until 1992/93. I think even the pre Options rmy lacked the resources to send a Division to the Gulf and maintain a strong presence in Germany. A quick flick through Gulf War One by Hugh McManners suggests that the BAOR was stripped virtually to the bone to make sure the 1st Armoured Division was at full strength in the Gulf, with the Armoured Regiments bearing the brunt of it. There is a quote from a Major General assigned to the MOD that "every single tank engine we possessed had to go [to Saudi Arabia] leaving Germany for years afterwards with empty hulks." Apparently this was on Thatcher's direct orders as a result of concerns over reliability.

Originally Posted by Mahatatain

I'm really not sure about this one and you're quite possibly right that the white South African government wouldn't have made a deal with the ANC if the Soviet Union is still in existence and is still a major backer of communism around the world. I've got this vague memory of reports of the ANC being covertly backed by the Soviet Union but I have no idea whether that's actually true or not.

This is certainly an interesting one to include though as it further illustrates how different an alternative history the v1.0 background is.

To be honest, I think this one could go either way. There is ample evidence that the apartheid Government were already talking to the ANC well before the Soviet Union collapsed, so it's quite possible that South Africa might still have ended up with an ANC Government, but possibly with a different (i.e. slower) timescale than happened IRL.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

1. The first Gulf War (I think Webstral put together a piece a while back that presented a scenario where GW1 still took place, but you have to bear in mind that from a UK perspective at least all the tanks got taken from Germany which seriously reduced the strength of the BAOR at the time - debatable whether that would have happened with an ongoing Cold War.

This is a fair point. However, a solution can be found. The US wants UK troops on the ground for the purpose of showing solidarity. Once both parties agree to the desirability of this, I think there are answers to the challenge of getting the requisite British formations to Saudi without badly weakening the BOAR.

One possibility is to mobilize British reserve units to take the place of the units going to Saudi near the beginning of the crisis. The timing ought to be staggered with the arrival of US formations taking the place of VII Corps so that the Soviets don't begin to get the idea that NATO is attempting a build-up in Europe using the situation in the Gulf as a screen.

Another possibility is for American formations to take the place of the British formations. The US would have to mobilize another National Guard division, and there would be transportation issues.

Another possibility is for one of the other NATO allies to call up reserves to replace the missing British formations. If one is creative, the exercise could serve other good purposes. For instance, Spain might deploy its division earmarked for NATO (though I don't know if this division was serving in that role at the time).

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Webstral

This is a fair point. However, a solution can be found. The US wants UK troops on the ground for the purpose of showing solidarity. Once both parties agree to the desirability of this, I think there are answers to the challenge of getting the requisite British formations to Saudi without badly weakening the BOAR.

One possibility is to mobilize British reserve units to take the place of the units going to Saudi near the beginning of the crisis. The timing ought to be staggered with the arrival of US formations taking the place of VII Corps so that the Soviets don't begin to get the idea that NATO is attempting a build-up in Europe using the situation in the Gulf as a screen.

Another possibility is for American formations to take the place of the British formations. The US would have to mobilize another National Guard division, and there would be transportation issues.

Another possibility is for one of the other NATO allies to call up reserves to replace the missing British formations. If one is creative, the exercise could serve other good purposes. For instance, Spain might deploy its division earmarked for NATO (though I don't know if this division was serving in that role at the time).

Agreed, there are solutions, although we would have probably had to rely on help from others as our own Reserves would have been primarily light infantry so we couldn't have made a like for like replacement (the Territorial Army did not have any heavy armoured units at that time, and hadn't done for a number of years - the main combat reinforcement tasked to the BAOR was the 2nd Infantry Division, which was made up of two Brigades of truck borne infantry and two towed Artillery Regiments (a Royal Artillery Regiment is equivalent to a Battalion) and the Regular Army's only Airmobile Brigade).

The idea of a US National Guard Division mobilising is a good one, otherwise perhaps the FRG could have mobilised some of their reserves.

Another possibility would have been for the UK to replace the vehicles sent to the Gulf with ones from its war stocks. IRL this did not happen as the threat of Soviet attack was deemed sufficiently low as to not warrant it, however with an ongoing Cold War that would have been different - or, as Mahatatain suggested, rather than denuding the BAOR, we could have gone straight to the war stocks and sent those vehicles from the UK to the Gulf.

Problem with that of course is that then we wouldn't have had any war stocks left!

All in all, I think the US National Guard deployment sounds like the best option. Either that or possibly downsizing the UK presence in the Gulf to a Brigade rather than a Division and filling the gaps in the BAOR as best as possible.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by Webstral

This is a fair point. However, a solution can be found. The US wants UK troops on the ground for the purpose of showing solidarity. Once both parties agree to the desirability of this, I think there are answers to the challenge of getting the requisite British formations to Saudi without badly weakening the BOAR.

One possibility is to mobilize British reserve units to take the place of the units going to Saudi near the beginning of the crisis. The timing ought to be staggered with the arrival of US formations taking the place of VII Corps so that the Soviets don't begin to get the idea that NATO is attempting a build-up in Europe using the situation in the Gulf as a screen.

Another possibility is for American formations to take the place of the British formations. The US would have to mobilize another National Guard division, and there would be transportation issues.

Another possibility is for one of the other NATO allies to call up reserves to replace the missing British formations. If one is creative, the exercise could serve other good purposes. For instance, Spain might deploy its division earmarked for NATO (though I don't know if this division was serving in that role at the time).

Don't forget BAOR was stipped of almost all stores and ammunition in order to put 1st (UK) Armoured Division in the field. Troops were not a problem as reservists could easily be called up. Things for them to use were at a premium.

[Legbreaker]

Iraq was an ally of the USSR. Would anyone really have risked starting WWIII is the USSR hadn't disintegrated?
My feeling is the world would have quietly turned it's back on Kuwait in that situation and tried it's best to forget about it. Might have been a few harsh words flying backwards and forwards, but I just don't buy the West risking starting something with the other world superpower over a tiny, insignificant country which had a history as part of the province of Basra according to Wiki.

The Iraq-Kuwait dispute also involved Iraqi claims to Kuwait as a territory of Iraq. After gaining independence from the United Kingdom in 1932, the Iraqi government immediately declared that Kuwait was rightfully a territory of Iraq, as it had been associated with Basra until the British creation of Kuwait after World War I and thus stated that Kuwait was a British imperialist invention. Kuwait had been a part of the Ottoman Empire's province of Basra, something that Iraq claimed made it rightful Iraq territory. Its ruling dynasty, the al-Sabah family, had concluded a protectorate agreement in 1899 that assigned responsibility for its foreign affairs to Britain. Britain drew the border between the two countries in 1922, making Iraq virtually landlocked.

There appears to also have been a number of other tensions between the two including Kuwait slant drilling into Iraqi oilfields, overproducing oil and thereby reducing the barrel price even though Opec had agreed not to do this. Iraq at the time had a tremendous debt from the earlier Iraq-Iran war and were suffering badly from this reduction in price.

So, given all the issues, it's very possible the US would have turned it's back and the coalition would never have been formed. It would have been very easy to justify non-intervention, especially when the risk of pulling in the USSR was so high.

Without the 90-91 war, Nato would also have missed out on learning a lot of valuable lessons. Reorganisations would not have occurred until sometime after 1996 (instead of 91-95), new vehicles and weapon systems not researched and produced, doctrine not updated. Cold war assumptions and practises would have remained in play until fighting in 1996-97 caused them to be reassessed - probably too late to do any good since nukes started to rain down in July 97.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

So, given all the issues, it's very possible the US would have turned it's back and the coalition would never have been formed. It would have been very easy to justify non-intervention, especially when the risk of pulling in the USSR was so high.

I'm inclined to agree with you.

With specific regard to the thread, i.e filling in the V1.0 background the RDF Sourcebook would certainly seem to imply that Kuwait is still an Independent State, given it is mentioned as a location for French troops iirc.

So presumably we have two options - "butterfly" the whole thing away by saying the Iraqi invasion never happened in the first place or accept that it did happen but the Iraqis were no longer occupying Kuwait by the later part of the decade, either because they were repelled somehow or a negotiated settlement was reached?