French involvement in the Europe after 2001.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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)

[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.

[Adm.Lee]

Small teams and agent networks are all I've been thinking the French would be able to do for a while. Were I them, I would be wanting to collect intelligence from the east as much as possible, with an eye to influencing things in a pro-French direction.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Small teams and agent networks are all I've been thinking the French would be able to do for a while. Were I them, I would be wanting to collect intelligence from the east as much as possible, with an eye to influencing things in a pro-French direction.

Or drop off teams of Australian SAS by sub in Poland to pick up a package, as in Twilight Encounters. BTW, has anyone come up with a possible back story behind that one?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Or drop off teams of Australian SAS by sub in Poland to pick up a package, as in Twilight Encounters. BTW, has anyone come up with a possible back story behind that one?

No, but here's an idea. They needed the best in the world for a mission, and got them.

[Legbreaker]

They needed more spare parts for their MP-5's and stupidly trusted the Frence to drop them off in Germany?

There could be any number of reasons, but I just can't think of any particularly important ones. Australia has just come out of a war with Indonesia which resulted in the near total destruction of Australia's naval and air assets. It's also popssible that we're engaged in Korea as part of the UN forces there. There are indications also that Australians are located on Cyprus carrying out peacekeeping duties with the UN.

With all that activity elsewhere, I'm not so sure an SAS mission in devastated Poland would be all that high up on the list of priorities...

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by John Farson

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.

There's a lot of oil in Algeria, which is just a short hop across the Med from Marseille, but there's also a lot of history between France and Algeria, so I have no clue how that might play out?

Would the French be in a position to try and reconquer Algeria to take control of the oil fields by force? Mo mentioned the possibility of French troops being in Tunisia - might the French and the Tunisians make a joint move against the Algerians? Perhaps Morocco might also be involved on the French side?

That said would they really want to invade Algeria? I think there are a lot of French citizens of Algerian descent living in France, and making military moves against the mother country might spark off a whole wave of internal disorder. Also, are they already getting enough oil and gas from their partners in the Middle East?

But wouldn't it be better to be in control of your own supplies rather than rely on others?

Or perhaps some sort of negotiated agreement be possible?

(Of course, there's every possibility that the Algerian refineries might have been nuked, in which case it may be a moot point.)

[Legbreaker]

Where exactly is France going to be getting it's oil, gas, coal and other energy resources from anyway? What reserves exist within it's borders and what can it rely on to be delivered each and every time it's needed?
It's all well and good to say oil is coming from the middle east, but how exactly is it being transported. There's no way it'd be by pipeline up through Turkey and it's a fair bet the Suez has been nuked so you won't catch anyone wanting to sail through there even if it is still open.
Coming over land through Palestine or Israel is not likely to happen either so we're left with the posibility of a long voyage down around the bottom of Africa with all the attendant piratical risks.

That of course is just oil, what about coal, iron and other ores, and all the other things needed to support a modern society? Traditional trading partners such as the UK and the USA are history, as is just about everyone in Europe, the middle east and as can be seen in another thread in a post about Libya, northern Africa.

To me France might have avoided the general war, but they're by no means unscathed. France simply has more of it's infrastructure and military in working order, but it's still got all the problems everyone else does regarding feeding, clothing and keeping the populace warm.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It's all well and good to say oil is coming from the middle east, but how exactly is it being transported. There's no way it'd be by pipeline up through Turkey and it's a fair bet the Suez has been nuked so you won't catch anyone wanting to sail through there even if it is still open.
Coming over land through Palestine or Israel is not likely to happen either so we're left with the posibility of a long voyage down around the bottom of Africa with all the attendant piratical risks.

Which is exactly why I'm suggesting the French might consider a move against Algeria to secure easier access to oil and gas supplies.

[Mohoender]

Interesting thoughts

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

There's a lot of oil in Algeria, which is just a short hop across the Med from Marseille, but there's also a lot of history between France and Algeria, so I have no clue how that might play out?

Not a problem (accessibility will be) as France is already a prime customer for Algerian gas. My cousin is actually spending two-third of his time in a life base located in the middle of the Sahara and pumping oil. However, I would count Algeria to be facing a full-scale civil war and Oran and Skikda would probably have been nuked (they are the main oil terminal)

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Would the French be in a position to try and reconquer Algeria to take control of the oil fields by force? Mo mentioned the possibility of French troops being in Tunisia - might the French and the Tunisians make a joint move against the Algerians? Perhaps Morocco might also be involved on the French side?
That said would they really want to invade Algeria? I think there are a lot of French citizens of Algerian descent living in France, and making military moves against the mother country might spark off a whole wave of internal disorder. Also, are they already getting enough oil and gas from their partners in the Middle East?

We wouldn't put a finger in the Djebels again. It's like asking if US wants to conquer Vietnam or USSR get involved again in Afghanistan. Not a chance!! In addition, Algeria has plenty of youth to make your life hell and plenty with french citizenship able to carry devastating terrorist actions. For my part I consider that Morocco was nuked for being too suportive of NATO. Tunisia, however, is on French side and, may be and only may be, they can be running a few unofficial oil operations in the deep sands of Algeria. No need to invade, you'll just have to deal with constant attack from Tuaregs.

France getting oil from the Middle East is one of the inconsistancy of T2K (IMO). Why would you get it from there when you already get plenty from Cameroon and Gabon and some from Tunisia? That doesn't rule out the French presence, however, as it is strategically more than important.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

But wouldn't it be better to be in control of your own supplies rather than rely on others?

What France would get from others would be bonus only (probably a good path for negociation and that would be the sole justification for the Middle East Oil). First, France produces some oil. Not much but that would be used only by the army. Second under T2K coal mines would have been reopened in France, Belgium and Saarland . Third and more importantly, what about the North Sea? HMG still controls a few wells, you can expect that this is also the case for Norway (harder for Netherlands). And of course, France which has the planes, the warships, and the tankers would sit idle. They are not that stupid! Of course, their oil terminals on the Atlantic have been destroyed but one still exists in Marseille (I join a small Map). More important T2K nukes Ghent (why I still don't understand). Nevertheless, if you go with that France still has access to Ostende/Zeebruge (Belgium) and that is an oil teminal located right on the North Sea. Anyway, it wouldn't be that difficult for the French to build a new oil terminal at one of the remaining Atlantic Port (Bordeaux, Boulogne, Brest, Cherbourg, Lorient, Roscoff, Saint Malo...)

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Or perhaps some sort of negotiated agreement be possible?

That is definitely possible. The French letting Algerian pirates do what they please in exchange for some oil. However, as you say Algerians oil terminal would have been destroyed and that cannot represent much.

[Rainbow Six]

Thanks Mo, interested on your take on Algeria. I'd agree that there are a number of places along the west coast of Africa that could supply France with oil (I wonder what would have happened to Nigeria - I'd imagine it must have been hit by a few nukes in 1997 or 1998).

A Franco Tunisian alliance seems perfectly reasonable, but I appreciate that Tunisia might not be able to produce enough on its own to meet French needs. I do like the idea of the Tunisians operating clandestinely in Algeria though.

I would question your suggstion of a French move against the North Sea platforms though. In an earlier post you asked what would be the point in getting involved in a war with NATO...isn't there a risk that making a move against those fields might risk conflict with the British?

Whilst I think I've made it clear in previous posts that I envisage the French interfering in British affairs, with a view to keeping the UK destabilised for as long a time as possible, I do think that it would be important to the French that such interference would be subtle, covert, and most importantly deniable. I really don't see the French wanting to get involved in a shooting war with the UK, and I don't know if making a grab on some of our oil rigs might lead to that. Sure, you can argue that the French military would be far superior to the British in 2000, but we're still a nuclear power and could cause some hurt to France (as obviously they could to us - but who has the most to lose?)...that's partly why I think that whilst relations between France and the UK might be a little cool there would be a line that neither side would want to cross.

If on the other hand you are talking about the French taking over some abandoned British rigs and operating them clandestinely, that's a whole different matter...no problem with that at all. I also think any rigs in Dutch waters would be fair game - after all, France has already invaded Holland, so seizing Dutch oil rigs is only an extension of that.

Cheers

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I would question your suggstion of a French move against the North Sea platforms though. In an earlier post you asked what would be the point in getting involved in a war with NATO...isn't there a risk that making a move against those fields might risk conflict with the British?

Whilst I think I've made it clear in previous posts that I envisage the French interfering in British affairs, with a view to keeping the UK destabilised for as long a time as possible, I do think that it would be important to the French that such interference would be subtle, covert, and most importantly deniable. I really don't see the French wanting to get involved in a shooting war with the UK, and I don't know if making a grab on some of our oil rigs might lead to that. Sure, you can argue that the French military would be far superior to the British in 2000, but we're still a nuclear power and could cause some hurt to France (as obviously they could to us - but who has the most to lose?)...that's partly why I think that whilst relations between France and the UK might be a little cool there would be a line that neither side would want to cross.

Very good points and I have to agree with them. I agree that seizing Dutch rigs is a better option. Still, talking of the line and cool relation there might be some ground for negociations that I totally overlooked. I can sea the French, despite their chilly relations with HMG negotiate several of these oil rigs in return for an access to a french refinery and for protection by the French military. I always had the idea of France doing its best to weaken UK just because the French are playing in its backyard. With what you pointed out I can see some serious reasons to negociate for both. For France it would be a less hazardous way to get British neutrality and for HMG it would be the best way to get the means to reconquer england quickly. Still Wales and Scotland can be part of a separate negociation. All that could lead to an interesting development and to a very bad news for the Dutch (much in the way of the Valladolid debate). Must be the wallon part of me thinking here

[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.