Would France sit out the War?

[dragoon500ly]

Source is "Armies of NATO's Central Front"

"France is a special case, while she remains a member of the NATO alliance, her forces are not part of any NATO integrated military structure, nor are they under NATO control. France goes even further than Norway and Denmark, which do not permit foreign forces to be stationed on their soil during peacetime, by also ruling out NATO exercise and having only limited participation in NATO commands, activity and decision making.

France believes that the independence it seeks in its foreign policy is incompatible with integration into NATO defense planning. Yet, just about all of the decision-makers in the mainstream of French political life realize that the country is totally committed to the West, and the realities of modern geopolitics have forced France to act in concert with her NATO allies in assuring European security. While France retains the right not to participate with NATO forces in a future conflict, plans exist for such participation should it be seen as necessary."

Now, while admiting that GDW had a wonderful plot point, given the world situation in the early 1990s, would France have really sit out a general war?

[Olefin]

I could see them sitting out a conventional war as long as France herself wasnt touched. But GDW stretched the timeline to the point of breaking as believeable when they had France take several hits from Russian nukes on their refineries and oil production capability and they still sat out the war.

I cant see any French government surviving taking several hits from nukes and just sitting it out - you would have a military coup within weeks if not days.

At the very least you would have had some French units say the heck with this and go over to NATO so they could strike back. Now not saying division size units but possibly up to regimental sized units especially those in areas where defection would be easier - i.e. its one thing to march from Brittany to Germany against orders and get away with it, totally another to be on Rhineland occupation duty and defect to NATO or be in the Middle East and take on the Russians.

Add in at least some of their Air Force and Navy as well - unless they ground their whole air force its impossible to stop pilots from going to burner and getting into German air space to join the fight. Same with the navy - especially if the officers are in on it.

This applies to the Belgians as well. A more realistic timeilne would have had either an attempted coup that failed or several "rebel" units that joined NATO from both France and Belguim - especially as the French military having a large vocal minority wanting to take France into the war is mentioned very prominently in Survivors Guide to the UK.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Olefin

This applies to the Belgians as well. A more realistic timeilne would have had either an attempted coup that failed or several "rebel" units that joined NATO from both France and Belguim - especially as the French military having a large vocal minority wanting to take France into the war is mentioned very prominently in Survivors Guide to the UK.

My T2k universe has an extant Belgian "rump state" that's wedged between "Free Belgium" (the death zone that France rules) and Germany. They took some hard hits but are more-or-less intact, and are very receptive to US mercenaries in their own army after Omega, having been close NATO allies.

[Badbru]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I could see them sitting out a conventional war as long as France herself wasnt touched. But GDW stretched the timeline to the point of breaking as believeable when they had France take several hits from Russian nukes on their refineries and oil production capability and they still sat out the war.

I still think it's believable. France stayed out initially as they were opposed to renewed German aggression towards Poland. Germany invades in both timelines don't they? The French remember WW2. Once they make that initial decision they kinda politically need to stick to it.
Several hits from Russian nukes you say? Are you sure, are they sure?
The French will want to be certain of the aggressor before doing the one thing that will guarantee more nukes arriving on their doorstep, or have you not considered the Soviet response if France had have joined Nato Forces immediatly after their first home strike. What satelites there were in 95 are gone by 97. Radar might track bombers and ICBM's comming from Russian territory but a Sub launch, hmmn could be a few nations capable of that.

I cant see any French government surviving taking several hits from nukes and just sitting it out - you would have a military coup within weeks if not days.

The French military is pretty busy in La Zone Morte by this stage and they've allready followed their political masters in an invasion of Belgium and Germany
so, now you see them as seditious and willing to attempt a coup?

At the very least you would have had some French units say the heck with this and go over to NATO so they could strike back. Now not saying division size units but possibly up to regimental sized units especially those in areas where defection would be easier - i.e. its one thing to march from Brittany to Germany against orders and get away with it, totally another to be on Rhineland occupation duty and defect to NATO or be in the Middle East and take on the Russians.

Add in at least some of their Air Force and Navy as well - unless they ground their whole air force its impossible to stop pilots from going to burner and getting into German air space to join the fight. Same with the navy - especially if the officers are in on it.

This applies to the Belgians as well. A more realistic timeilne would have had either an attempted coup that failed or several "rebel" units that joined NATO from both France and Belguim - especially as the French military having a large vocal minority wanting to take France into the war is mentioned very prominently in Survivors Guide to the UK.

By your own resoning as to why you couldn't, wouldn't and didn't swallow whole the desertions of US Forces after returning from Omega, or in Texas, it's desertion in a time of war, "They get shot". So you're happy to have French military personel be deserters, side switchers, perhaps even labelled traitors, but it's inconcievable for US personel? Ok

[James Langham]

Who said all the nukes were Soviet? Unlikely to be US but who is likely to be able to tell if sub-launched (I know they could identify the origin of the plutonium but this could be misleading in itself).

Logically would France have gained anything from siding with NATO? With the Pact held in Germany, they gain little by joining in and risk a lot.

France COULD even flirt with the idea of joining the Pact with it's long socialist history. There is great opportunity for a power politics based game with the players playing senior French politicians, military officers and civil servants. There are hints of this in the UK Sourcebook.

[boogiedowndonovan]

Originally Posted by Olefin

This applies to the Belgians as well. A more realistic timeilne would have had either an attempted coup that failed or several "rebel" units that joined NATO from both France and Belguim - especially as the French military having a large vocal minority wanting to take France into the war is mentioned very prominently in Survivors Guide to the UK.

I'm a broken record when it comes to the T2k Belgium.

Consider the demographics of Belgium, over 50% speak a variant of Dutch (Flemish), a significant minority 40% speak French (Walloons) and a smaller minority speaks German. All three are official languages of Belgium. So I don't think the whole nation would automatically side with the French. Most of the Dutch speakers are in the north of the country, most of the French speakers are in the south, the German speakers are also in the south along the border with Germany. Ironically, the capitol, Brussels is mostly French speaking but within the Dutch speaking Flanders area.

In my campaign, Belgium honors its NATO commitments, 1st Paracommando Rgt goes to Norway, Belgian I Corps which has forward units stationed in West Germany mobilizes, possibly when the nukes hit and France pushes through Belgium to establish La Zone Morte , the Belgian armed forces disintegrate as Dutch and French speakers head home.

There may be small Belgian units and individuals who've attached themselves to NATO units and are still fighting in Norway or Central Europe. Or even Belgian military personnel stranded in the US, UK or Canada.

I think a question that should be considered is whether French speaking Belgians consider themselves more "Belgian" or more "French". I would assume that although a good minority of Belgians speak non-Dutch langauges, there is still national sentiment amongst them. I'm not doubting that some French speaking Belgians (and even some Dutch and German speakers) would side with the French, but I can't see the entire nation siding with them.

Another assumption that I have is that the GDW staff didn't even know that most Belgians speak Dutch or that the Belgian military is divided into Dutch and French speaking units.

perhaps once I get off my lazy ass, I will write an article for the T2k gazette about this.

Back on topic, as for the French, I do like the idea of French volunteers supporting and serving with NATO units.

[Raellus]

Of all of the alternative history elements in the T2K v1.0 (the only timeline, AFAIC), I find the French position to be the most believable. IRL, France always stayed on the periphery of NATO, preferring to retain as much political/military autonomy as possible, and playing a sort of double game pitting the west versus the east, while simultaneously flirting with both. Since WWII, France has put its own self interest above that of any alliance, and the T2K creators simply continued this policy to a logical conclusion.

In T2K, France benefits much more by staying out of the war than it likely would have by jumping in on NATO's side.

There's historical precedence for this. France didn't attack Germany when it invaded Poland in 1939, despite a standing alliance with the Poles. Despite having one of the largest militaries in Europe at the time, France quite simply did not want another war with Germany. It talked tough, but when it came to backing it up, France took the path of least resistance. I can see this repeating in 1996-'97, when its nominal ally, Germany, invaded Poland. First, German reunification would likely have dredged up old fears of a powerful German neighbor, and if the French goverment at the time was left-leaning, perhaps pros-socialist sympathies as well. Second, by practicing restraint after being nuked a couple of times, France avoids getting nuked a whole lot more. Its opportunism also results in territorial gains in the Benelux countries. And by playing a long-game, France becomes a global power (in the 2300 timeline

It's a winning foreign policy, both in the short term and in the long-run. It makes a lot of sense, both historically, and in terms of realpolitik.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

There's a story, probably apocryphal, that when de Gaulle told Macnamara that he planned to withdraw militarily from NATO and wanted all US troops removed from French soil the response was "Does that mean the ones we buried at Normandy, too, you son of a bitch?"

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Also: if you're of the mind that France didn't withdraw from NATO and wind up as a Post-TDM belligerent nation, then real world events dovetail nicely: in 1995 France realigned it's military more with NATO and started more active participation in NATO operations, increasing on a yearly basis and they're now a full member again (although clearly T2k changes everything from '96 onward).

So if you're playing with the idea that France comes back in to line with NATO, there's real-world events to support that point of view.

[stg58fal]

Originally Posted by James Langham

France COULD even flirt with the idea of joining the Pact

So since they dont actually get invaded, they skip "surrender" and go directly to "collaborate", eh?

[Olefin]

its very obvious that the nukes that hit the French had to be Soviet

the US would have to be insane to nuke the French - they are sitting right on the US supply lines into Europe for one. For another they have a bunch of nicely nuke capable jets and nuclear capable aircraft that can launch nuclear missiles and drop bombs and basically wipe out what is left of the US and Germans

Plus the French radar system would have still been intact - that system would have been able to identify by trajectory and speed what kind of missiles were coming in on them and thus id the launch as US or Soviet

as for it happening - multiple references in the canon of all the timelines of France being nuked during the war to take out petroleum facilities

V2.2 timeline makes direct reference to it - i.e. France was hit by nukes to deny their ports and oil refining facilities to NATO

Howling Wildnerness in its description of 1997 also has the French and Venezuela hit by nukes to take out their petroleum facilities as well

[Olefin]

its the getting nuked part and not joining the war that makes no sense

just sitting it out and letting the US and Soviets and Germans and the UK tear themselves to pieces - very French, very believeable - as in a la Red Dawn - twice in one century is enough

Getting nuked and just taking it - nope no way - at the very least they would have retaliated, hit the Soviets with a few nukes and said if you nuke us again then we join NATO and we are at war - i.e. you took out Toulon so we take out Sevastopol or the naval base at Leningrad or Murmansk or Archangel

[HorseSoldier]

If they join the war they are going to get a lot more megatonnage for the .sovs. It's pretty likely the Soviets communicated this to them. And it's plausibly French to be rational about things when the chips are down.

[Olefin]

then why not join the war later - i.e. wait till the Soviets are close to down and out and finish the job? i.e. after the Soviets have broken down, push them over the cliff in revenge for their lost cities? and by 2000 the Soviets would have no idea where the nukes came from

I just dont see the French, at some point, not giving the Soviets one hell of a bloody nose for what they did to them

basically what they are doing in the Middle East and Africa right now is a proxy war with them already

I worked for a French company at one time that built military equipment for the French army - seeing the Germans take a hit and having a good time watching it makes a lot of sense - but the French are very very patriotic about their country - they would have hit back and hit back hard - or their government would have fallen and the new one would have hit back hard

[HorseSoldier]

Because it was a limited exchange -- even 2000, the remnants of the Soviet government or US government had, at least in theory, enough megatonnage to destroy France. Whether or not either nation had enough functional command and control to do so would be a huge question mark which the French were likely unable to be 100% about. The realpolitik (if it can even be called that) of not being annihilated has trumped national pride and patriotism quite a bit since WW2, worldwide, and the parts of that equation are still partially in effect I the T2K year 2000.

[dragoon500ly]

From a logistical standpoint, it would be hard for NATO to standup to a Soviet attack. Leaving France out of the mix, the major ports would be Antwerp (Belgium), Kiel, Hamburg and Bremenhaven (West Germany), Rotterdam and Amsterdam (Holland). That's right! The major major supply lines for NATO run roughly northwest to south in Germany...rand in an excellent position for an advancing Russian tank army to cut...and I wonder what multi-star genius thought that idea would work during wartime!

Of these, Kiel and Hamburg would both be knocked out of action within a very short period of time, both are well within SSM range of the border and any major attack by the Russians would lead to their capture/isolation. Bremenhaven is a fair sized port, but the loss of Kiel/Hamburg would make this one of the major nuke targets for the Soviets,

Which leaves the Dutch/Begium ports. Of these Antwerp would be THE major port...and a ripe target for several nukes, not to mention being fairly easy to mine. Rotterdam/Amsterdam are good size ports, but their sea approaches are a nightmare of shallows that requires near constant dredging to keep open.

Which leaves France, and its support of NATO as the big question; Brest, Cherbourg and Bordeaux would be the key ports for NATO, all attached by major road/railways and fairly safe from air attack as well as being much harder for the Soviet Navy/Air Force to strike.

This makes France's decision to support, or not support NATO so important.

[Webstral]

France really had to sit out the NATO offensives into East Germany and across Poland for things to be somewhat in balance.

We know that China was all-in on the Far Eastern Front. The Soviets were so badly pressed that they were withdrawing forces from Eastern Europe and taking Warsaw Pact formations to make up the numbers. The West German invasion came reasonably close to success. The sudden introduction of 10+ Anglo-American heavy divisions, plus the full weight of the RAF and USAF, would have been absolutely devastating for the Pact forces in East Germany. Were it not for the contents of the Soviet Vehicle Guide stating otherwise, I’d expect whole armies to be enveloped and destroyed in the DDR. As it is, the best interpretation of the given histories I can make is that the Anglo-American forces behaved much as NATO forces do after the counterattack into the Krefeld Salient in General Sir John Hackett’s The Third World War: they push forward less with the intention of inflicting a decisive defeat on the enemy than getting the enemy off German soil. Falaise Gap-style openings would not have been closed, and tens or hundreds of thousands of Pact troops would have been allowed to withdraw. Combat equipment might have drawn very heavy fire, but streams of troops might not have been subjected to a Highway of Death-style punishment in an effort to end the fighting on somewhat good terms with the Soviets.

The addition of the French military, along possibly with the Greek, Italian, Spanish, and Belgian militaries, would have severely overpowered the Soviets. At the very least, French participation in NATO would have nullified the Italian intervention in Austria and southern Germany. Also, the French might have had the common sense to point out that the Soviets would go nuclear once NATO troops crossed the Soviet border. That’s not a given, of course. But the French at least would not be shy about disagreeing with SACEUR and POTUS. Cutting out the French and the other NATO members who bail makes the NATO-Pact contest in Europe more balanced than it otherwise would be. So in a very real sense, the French have to sit out the fight.

In hindsight, of course, we know that the French were willing to have Germany reunited. It actually happened. But who could have predicted as much in 1984? I had high school social studies teachers who swore on their mothers’ graves that Germany would never be reunited, and the Soviet Union would last forever. Their views reflected the conventional wisdom of the day.

[James Langham]

Do the French have the capability to hit Russia with nukes? I'm no expert on strategic nuclear weapons. If they have sub launched what is the range? If they do have the range maybe the submarine is destroyed by either side in error.

As for the Soviets they may have hit limited targets with a warning that any retaliation would be met with massive strikes. The trigger for this could be French action in the Middle East that threatened the Soviets, maybe small skirmishes or covert actions (about which the French government might be unaware - consider DGSE's actions over the Rainbow Warrior) and the Kremlin (or at least the survivors from the rubble of it!) wanted to send a message to stay out or else.

What really needs to be worked out is the political make up of the French Government, can anyone recall anything from canon on this?

[dragoon500ly]

At the time, France fielded:

18 SSBS S-3 IRBM (1MT wearhead and range of 3,500km).
42 Pluton SSM (10KT warhead and range of 120km).
16 Mirage IVA with the AN-22 nuclear bomb (60 KT), max range of 3,200km.
18 Mirage IVA with the ASMP nuclear bomb (70-90KT?), max range of 3,200km.
30 Mirage IIIE with the AN-52 (15KT), max range of 2,400km.
36 Super Etendard with the AN-52 (15KT), max range of 1,500km.
80 M-4 SLBM (6x150KT warheads and 4,000km range).
16 + 16 M-45 SLBM (6x150KT warheads and 5,000km range).
0 + 16 M5 SLBM (6x150KT with rqange of 5,000km, in service 1997-98).

[pmulcahy11b]

The question is, "Would the Russians let the French sit out the war?" I can't see the Russians not hitting the French to deny NATO the use of their ports and to cut off the possibility that the French might throw in with NATO early in the war.

[Olefin]

Maybe the real question is how long will the French continue to sit out the war - the timeline basically stopped in the early spring of 2001. While the war in Europe has pretty much petered out in Germany and Poland the war in the Middle East is still very much on - and there the French are there in force directly in contact with the Russians or at least Russian backed forces in Iraq.

So will France finally get into the war with the Soviets directly but only in the Middle East? Not so much by directly engaging the Soviets but possibly by taking on their proxy forces in Iraq? Or maybe staging an excuse so they can hit the Soviets hard and get some payback. Especially if doing so allows CENTCOM to pull out for home with a Soviet defeat and leave them as the only power remaining in the Middle East?

By the way - as to the Soviets using nukes on France by the 2000-2001 era I dont see that as very likely. The events of Boomer suggest that the Soviets may no longer have any operational nuclear missiles that can reach France - i.e. those missiles on the boomer they were trying to recover may be the only ones they have left

i.e. From the module "The potential of intact nuclear missiles and a submarine to launch them fanned the embers of vengeance in Kozlov's mind, and they soon burst into flame"

The Soviets may have done what MilGov did in the US - i.e. removed the warheads off their remaining missiles to keep them from being used against them by rebels. Thus the French by 2001 may be where they can finally hit back against the Soviets for what they did to them in 1997 and be able to do it without any risk of the Soviets being able to use their nukes on them.

[Rainbow Six]

I've always assumed that the French (and Belgian) "withdrawal" from NATO would have included refusing to allow NATO forces to use Belgian / French ports, in which case the Soviets wouldn't have had to take any overt action to deny NATO use of French ports before November 1997 if the French Government were already denying such use.

Obviously we know the French were nuked by someone at the end of 1997 -although I have in the past had a different position on this, arguments put forward on these boards have caused me to change my mind, and I'm now inclined to agree with the point put forward by Horsesoldier, i.e. that if the French join the war they risk getting a much heavier megatonnage dropped on them so stay out (I'm also inclined to agree that there may well have been some sort of communication between the French and Soviet Governments to that effect).

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I realize this is wandering further afield from Canon, but bear with me...

Maybe France staying in is exactly why it got nuked. As was said upthread, a united NATO would squash the USSR in Central Europe - maybe that's exactly what the USSR feared and struck preemptively. France is sitting on its hinder, waiting for things to sort out, and then starts mobilizing troops when it looks like a NATO win is a fait accompli, and they offer to open up le Harve and other ports to full NATO usage, and French "observers" are seen moving in to position in Western Germany.

This encourages Italy to start doing similar moves.

The USSR then nukes France and she quickly withdraws, and Italy "gets the message" and becomes neutral/belligerent (I mean they sank a good portion of the USN in being during the last attempt to send a resupply convoy to Southern Europe so...)

Just idle speculation.

[Adm.Lee]

Do we know for certain that the French IRBM's didn't pay the Soviets back for the hits on their ports?

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Do we know for certain that the French IRBM's didn't pay the Soviets back for the hits on their ports?

Not aware of any published material that specifically says one way or the other. (At the risk of going off on a tangent, a French sourcebook might have been quite interesting...)

Those who do advocate a French attack on the USSR might be interested in this page on the etranger site which puts forward a scenario where that happened:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dh...ical/PGAA1.htm

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Not aware of any published material that specifically says one way or the other. (At the risk of going off on a tangent, a French sourcebook might have been quite interesting...)

Those who do advocate a French attack on the USSR might be interested in this page on the etranger site which puts forward a scenario where that happened:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dh...ical/PGAA1.htm

That may have given me the idea; it seems logical and fitting to me.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

I realize this is wandering further afield from Canon, but bear with me...

Maybe France staying in is exactly why it got nuked. As was said upthread, a united NATO would squash the USSR in Central Europe - maybe that's exactly what the USSR feared and struck preemptively. France is sitting on its hinder, waiting for things to sort out, and then starts mobilizing troops when it looks like a NATO win is a fait accompli, and they offer to open up le Harve and other ports to full NATO usage, and French "observers" are seen moving in to position in Western Germany.

This encourages Italy to start doing similar moves.

The USSR then nukes France and she quickly withdraws, and Italy "gets the message" and becomes neutral/belligerent (I mean they sank a good portion of the USN in being during the last attempt to send a resupply convoy to Southern Europe so...)

Just idle speculation.

Seems quite logical to me. Wouldn't be the first time a sharp punch in the nose forced the French to back down and reexamine its own best interests.

[Olefin]

I would think that France standing down after a nuclear strike without hitting back would have definitely had a coup attempt that would have had to fail for the timeline to go forward as it did.

Something like what happened at the end of WWII - i.e. when the Emperor recorded the surrender address a bunch of hard line Japanese officers tried to overthrown the govt but failed and the surrender went ahead.

Something similar most likely happened here as I cant see conservative members of the French military and government just accepting getting nuked and applauding the decision to not hit back and hit back hard - or to not join the war whole heartedly after a lot of French citizens were killed.

Consider the following list from Wikipedia of French refineries and you can see how many nukes we are talking about just to hit them - and this is the list of those over 100,000 bbl/day which I have seen posted here before as what was considered the threshold for a nuclear strike.

Provence Refinery, (Total), 155,000 bbl/d (24,600 m3/d)

Normandy Refinery, (Total), 350,000 bbl/d (56,000 m3/d)

Flandres Refinery, (Total), 160,000 bbl/d (25,000 m3/d)

Donges Refinery, (Total), 231,000 bbl/d (36,700 m3/d)

Feyzin Refinery, (Total), 119,000 bbl/d (18,900 m3/d)

Grandpuits Refinery, (Total), 99,000 bbl/d (15,700 m3/d)

Port Jérôme-Gravenchon Refinery, 270,000 bbl/d (43,000 m3/d)

Fos-sur-Mer Refinery, (ExxonMobil), 140,000 bbl/d (22,000 m3/d)

Petit Couronne Refinery, (Petroplus), 142,000 bbl/d (22,600 m3/d)

Lavera Marseilles Refinery, (Ineos), 220,000 bbl/d (35,000 m3/d)

Thats a lot of nuclear strikes in a country that is a nuclear power and it just sits there and takes it.

Assuming they didnt hit back you would have most likely had a significant amount of the French military going over the hill to join NATO. Probably on the order of as much as 25 percent of their total military perhaps even higher, with some naval ships and aircraft for sure added to that list. (doesnt take much on burner to go from patrolling the Dead Zone to landing at a Luftwaffe base or go from patrolling the English Channel to landing in the UK)

That could also explain the gaps in French units that was talked about quite a while ago here by me and others - i.e. that the RDF units are significantly understrength for a country not at war.

Well one reason could be Frenchmen who couldnt just sit back and let the Soviets hit their country and joined NATO to fight. Possibly even in their own units, similar to the Waffen SS French unit that was formed in WWII.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

The USSR then nukes France and she quickly withdraws, and Italy "gets the message" and becomes neutral/belligerent (I mean they sank a good portion of the USN in being during the last attempt to send a resupply convoy to Southern Europe so...)

With regard to the Italians, they are already committed as a belligerent before the nuclear exchanges begin (at least in V2.X - following the signing of a mutual defence pact with Greece in February 97, Italy declares War on NATO on 02 July 97, whilst the first use of nuclear weapons takes place on 09 July 97. V1 dates may differ).

[Olefin]

Thats right - Italy was already at war long before the nukes started to fly - always thought the only way they would have joined the war would be with a takeover by Socialists. I cant see Christian Democrats ever joining a war on the US and Germany - not without being attacked first.

Especially since the only areas in Italy that have ties to Greece and thus would go to war over them being attacked are the southern areas, Sardinia and Sicily - and they are not traditionally ones that have much power in the modern Italian government.