French involvement in the Europe after 2001.

[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.

[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]

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

[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?

[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)

[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.