Restrictions on Travel and Commerce before TDM

[kato13]

Thinking about how there is restricted travel movement in Africa now, led me to think about how the war would have affected travel worldwide.

The first case I come up with is Sweden, given they are trapped behind Norway and surrounded by seas that would be active war-zones would they be effectively isolated after November 1996?

Would civilian flights have been shot down in certain areas?

Are there any other Neutrals which would be severely effected?

[Cdnwolf]

I think most countries would withdraw into their own little shell and have a shoot first - sort it out afterwards attitude. Everyone would be running scared and even the slightest hint of a threat will get a overwhelming response.

[Olefin]

I could think of several others in Europe

Switzerland is surrounded by the war except for trade with France. V2 has that area of France being in revolt against the central government so if do V2 that means Switzerland is totally cut off from all trade routes

France is a neutral that has had her trade affected a lot - even though she wasn't in the war its pretty clear her harbors and commerce were badly hit - version 2 has Marseille as the largest intact French city meaning its port was probably the only one not hit during the war. However that wont happen till post TDM

Places like Andorra, San Marino, Lichtenstein and Monaco, even before the TDM, were probably already having issues with commerce ranging from cutoff of shipments of products coming in from overseas to refugees literally devouring their food stockpiles. Especially since they have neglible or non-existent police and militaries

[unkated]

Sweden
Sweden is kind of a special case (IMHO). Not many other neutral nations have a first rate, technologically advanced military industry feeding equipment to their military, and a tradition of well-armed robust neutrality. Sweden had advanced air defenses and did scramble fighters when wierd stuff happened. Their navy is defensive, but does patrol and would aggressively pursue subamrine contacts in their waters when they found them - almost always Soviets. They caught Soviet subs in their waters grounded on rocks and had not qualms about embarrassing the Soviets in telling the world what they caught. Sweden was not a member fo NATO, but certainly had more ties to NATO nations than to the WP.

The Swedes have some good resources for technology from their mountains, but on the other hand, they need commerce to supply the rest, particularly fuel, I believe. They do have an exposed position, being in the middle of the war zone, but that happened to them in 1940, too. (In fact, WW2 is when and why they developed their own military industry; in 1939/40 they were cut off from imports from the US, and England, France, Germany, and Italy suddenly had uses for any undelivered equipment that Sweden had ordered and paid for.)

I don't doubt a Swedish ability to keep large bodies of troops out of Sweden. They can only be approached by massed troops from a limited number of places, most of which are rough and/or mountainous, and they have troops and equipment designed and training for such areas.

What would being cut off mean? Let’s look at some basics – power and trade.

Looking quickly around the internet, the Swedes have been aggressively looking at alternative energy sources to wean themselves off oil since the 1970s; That was 75% of their fuel in the 1970s, down to 21+% in 2012. So, say by 1995, down to 40-50%.

Hydro-electric and nuke power (and wood as biofuel) supplied a large proportion of the Swedish energy budget; oil products would be (mostly) reserved for military and humanitarian uses, though the Swedes have had an interest in biofuel replacements for petrol.

(Not having seen Antenna's Swedish doc, still not available.)

The Swedes will aggressively defend the rights of neutral sea and air traffic locally to ensure their commerce. Their ability to do so will probably begin to falter as 1997 wears on, and aggression begins to take a toll on vessels (including oil tankers) making the last few hundred miles to Sweden. Or out - who can tell where that shipload of Volvo or Scania trucks is going! Or if that is a shipload of Volvo wagons, trucks, NATO-sized ammo or APCs...

Unfortunately for Sweden, other than sea traffic, their land connections include... Finland and Norway, with Denmark a short ferry ride away. Land ties with Norway are too many to sever – even if the Soviets could locate every railroad and major highway, there are too many smaller roads and/or short range sea routes to block them all. However, linking to anywhere else requires a sea lane. And without a world-wandering navy, freedom of the seas can be tough to enforce. Sweden does not (did not) have the ability to project naval power very far beyond the Baltic.

I can see the Soviets striking targets in the Swedish military industry to stop equipment and ammo being manufactured for sale to NATO nations. This may drive the Swedes to being de facto if not de jure NATO allies, of only in defending themselves from Soviet aggression (and NATO not performing any to keep the Swedes on their side).

I always wondered why if there was no great destructive attacks by nuke or ground assault, that Sweden did not come out better in 2300, being industrialized already (and yes, I noted the Swedish outreach mentioned in the early 2000s post war in the last History file). Certainly, they should get a large leg up in the immediate post-Twilight War period. (The answer, of course, is in 2300's background of the Great Game - "we played it out, and that's the way it happened.")

Switzerland
The Swiss have tradition of defensive neutrality that served them through the first two World Wars, as well as the Cold War. In the WW2, they did make efforts to protect their skies from intruders from either side. In both World Wars, both sides were daunted by the prospect of attacking Switzerland’s mountainous turf, and both appreciated having a neutral location for a variety of reasons.

I’m guessing that commercial air traffic, especially approaching from over France or Italy, is reasonably safe in 95-97. Except during deep penetration raids by Soviet/Pact aircraft, Swiss skies would be reasonably clear of combat aircraft. The Swiss do (did) have the air defense systems to make defending the neutrality of their skies a threat to anyone’s operations that would violate that neutrality.

Swiss landlinks run through France, Italy, Austria, and Germany. Correct me if I’m wrong, but at no point does any part of the Swiss border become a war zone (except the region near the French border in V2); so there is no particular point where the Swiss would have needed to close their border. They may have restrictions on who and what they allow in, but that’s it.

They do, I am sure, have the option of closing their border tight if they need to. I can also see them being a useful neutral transshipment point to aid commerce. For example, truckloads of French built 5.56mm ammo can be transported to Italy for export - and then loaded on a train to Switzerland – and then sold to a German importer, who can sell it to the Bundeswehr (in cases marked “Swatch,” perhaps). Without having told the French or Italian governments. Makes the Swiss bankers happy. And keeps the French factory operating at capacity.


Portugal and Spain
Portugal, was neutral in WW2. It’s right-wing government was careful not to favor either side, and honoring both its non-aggression pact with Spain (signed 1939) and its alliance agreement with Britain (signed 1386). Neutral air traffic was allowed and usually unmolested.

Hmmm. Little mention of Spain or Portugal in the collected History of the War PDFs. Portuguese landlinks run to Spain, and Spain’s run to (neutral) France, although North Africa is a short sea hop.

(All I remember of Spain in T2K is that they closed Rota, and in Jan 99 (and again in Aug 99), they have a military coup that takes control of small areas, according to the History docs.)

Again, in general, I imagine that traffic between neutrals, or even between neutrals and warring parties is allowed as long as it does not pass through or near a war zone. I am sure that commercial aircraft are very sure that their transponders are working, and keep in frequent touch with various ground stations – 1) to ensure that they are heard and noticed as a neutral commercial flight and 2) to keep being updated about the appearance of intruder aircraft.

And while customs and border patrols are probably tightened up to enforce neutrality, traffic and commerce would probably continue.

East of Italy, I imagine things get messy. It would be safer to go around Africa - but that would cost fuel that will become very expensive.

Uncle Ted

[Olefin]

Switzerland's borders would have seen fighting for sure - for the Italians to have invaded Southern Germany means they have to go right thru Austria - meaning that the border area with Austria and Germany would have seen a bunch of fighting both during the Italian invasion and the NATO counterattack.

Plus there was probably fighting between Germany and France near the Swiss border as well.

Most likekly Swiss aircraft would have been in quite a lot of interceptions with either NATO, Russian or Italian aircraft and some combat for sure. Plus marauder forces in the area engaging Swiss troops.

[unkated]

Remember, the question as posed was travel restrictions 1995-1997.

Originally Posted by Olefin

Switzerland's borders would have seen fighting for sure - for the Italians to have invaded Southern Germany means they have to go right thru Austria - meaning that the border area with Austria and Germany would have seen a bunch of fighting both during the Italian invasion and the NATO counterattack.

Only the eastern border. By cannon, fighting never moved around to the northern Swiss/German border, and none of the NATO actions against Italy entered Italy. So, travel would not need to have been stopped.

Plus there was probably fighting between Germany and France near the Swiss border as well.

By canon, the only fighting is in the Belgian/Dutch area, prompted by the French desire to use the Rhine as a defensible border. Germany (and UK and USA) really wanted to avoid a two front war, so any combat would be minimal.

Most likekly Swiss aircraft would have been in quite a lot of interceptions with either NATO, Russian or Italian aircraft and some combat for sure. Plus marauder forces in the area engaging Swiss troops.

Russian aircraft? Doubtful, unless they are running for internment. They won't be after targets in France (lest they want to push France to aid NATO). They won't be after targets in Italy, who are aiding them. And its not a useful corridor to southern Germany - over Austria is shorter and less well defended by '97. Too many better options fro Russian aircraft.

Marauders should not an issue in 1997 so far from a war zone.

Uncle Ted