Would France sit out the War?

[Olefin]

Just for the record there are a lot of differences between V1 and V2 as to France. The details of areas in rebellion from the main government, the Corsican Mafia controlling much of Southern France and the fact that French ports and refineries got nuked dont appear in V1 at all V1 paints a France that is short of oil (and makes hints that its because the Middle Eastern oil fields getting nailed in the war are the reason - i.e. thats why they are there in the RDF module to make sure they get most of what is left).

V1 paints a France that seems to be in much better shape than in V2. Clearly the V2.2 France is in much worse shape than we had been led to believe in the original timeline - still vastly better than the US, Soviets or the UK but clearly not as powerful as the V1 France.

And this France takes severe casualties from nuclear attacks and definitely says that Paris took some kind of damage in the war.

The timeline itself isnt that much different in V1 and V2 - but when you get to the area that describes the world and its conditions it is really different.

By the way its the same with Japan - in V1 Japan sounds like an untouched industrial society that only saw damage from its oil being cut off - in V2 they are at war with the Soviets and Japan has taken quite the nuclear beating.

And the point Horse Soldier makes about HW and 2300AD is well taken - I have said it before that you cant have the HW uber drought that only leaves 12 percent or so of the US population left alive at the end of 2001 (and that doesnt take into account what kind of new plagues would strike the US from 3/4 of the surviving population starving to death and leaving that many corpses rotting away unburied most likely by the survivors) and the US being as described in 2300AD - just not possible for both to occur in the same timeline. Not to where the US has a space navy, colonies on outer space, etc.. after that kind of loss of population (i.e. to where she loses at least 88 percent of her pre-war population).

But that is a discussion for another thread.

One thing to look at is what cities are France's main refineries located in - that basically tells you the tale of who lived and who died in France during the 1997 nuclear strikes. And what ports would be the most useful to NATO and thus the targets for the nuclear strikes that the V2 timeline says happens.

Brest, Calais and St. Nazaire all come to mind as potentials and Toulon in the Med as well. However I am of the opinion that the Med ports may not have been as important to NATO as the Atlantic ones and thus may not have been touched while the Atlantic ones took quite a hammering (but not ones like La Rochelle - way too far south to be a viable supply port for NATO operations in Germany)

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Just for the record there are a lot of differences between V1 and V2 as to France...The timeline itself isnt that much different in V1 and V2 - but when you get to the area that describes the world and its conditions it is really different.

I'm not sure I agree it could be described as "different" - when it comes to the section in the V2 BYB that describes global conditions, I don't have a V1 ref's guide to hand but to the best of my memory there isn't an equivalent section in V1, so it's not a case of it being different, it's a case of it not being specified in V1. So it's different in the sense that one version (2) is specific, the other (1) is not, but I don't think there's anything in 2 that contradicts 1.

For example, to me it would be different if V1 specifically stated that the largest undamaged City in France was Bordeaux whilst V2 states it's Marseilles, but that's not the case. V1 doesn't state one way or the other, so leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions.

I do agree with your thoughts about the Med ports being left untouched, as that's consistent with Marseilles not being nuked and is supported by Med Cruise, which suggests that the French now view the Med as "their own private lake".

[dragoon500ly]

I think we are missing the point of the original question. Canon is quite clear that France sits this one out, but is cannon based on what France would have down in real life?

I recently had the pleasure of working with a French Army officer serving an exchange tour, casual lunch soon turned into wargaming sessions. After one late night session, he saw a copy of T2K on by bookshelf and asked about it. This led into a massive BS session over what a Third World War in Europe would have been like...his opinion was that, in spite of its political stance, France would have gone to war with NATO. "It would be in France's best intrest to keep the Russians on the other side of the Elbe River."

When I posed the question of what France would do in the event that West Germany launched an attack to reclaim East Germany, he was silent for a few moments, "Given the circumstances at the time, I do not belive that it was possible, from either a political or a military standpoint, for West Germany to use force to reunifiy with East Germany."

When I asked what France would have done, "At the time, nobody wanted a reunified Germany, there are too many memories from the World Wars to allow that to happen."

So I asked if France would have opposed such a move, his opinion was that "France would have done everything possible to convince Bonn to not make such a foolish decision, had the Russians opposed such a move, the general war that would have broke out would have left no neutrals, even the Swiss would have been dragged into such a war."

So I asked the killer question, "what side would France have fought on?" His answer was accompanied with an evil grin "My friend, France would have been on France's side!"

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

...so it's not a case of it being different, it's a case of it not being specified in V1. So it's different in the sense that one version (2) is specific, the other (1) is not, but I don't think there's anything in 2 that contradicts 1.

Exactly right. V2.x simply expanded on V1.0 EXCEPT for the lead up to the war. You might even say the additional information in V2.x is just a continuation of V1 and should be seen by V1 sticklers as V1 canon (except where it is directly and specifically in contradiction).

[B.T.]

Just out of couriosity:
Did anyone here ever think about the Franco-German Brigade or the Eurocorps? In our reality, both units had been founded before 1996 (The Franco-German Brigade in 1989/1990, the Eurocorps in 1993). Espacially the founding of the Franco-German Brigade had been initialized by Helmut Kohl and François Mitterrand (in 1987). One of the ideas was to tighten the Franco-German bonds.
If these units had come to life in the T2k-universe, what do you think? Would their existence have any influence on the political decisions in France?

The German Wikipedia says: ”Im SACEUR-Abkommen vom 21. Januar 1993 wurden die Beziehungen und Kompetenzen zwischen NATO und Eurokorps geregelt.“ (Something like: The SACEUR-agreement from 21. January 1993 rules out the relations and compences between NATO and Eurokorps.) I did not find such a paragraph in the English Wikipedia.

[HorseSoldier]

I personally see a number of points where the regional information in the 2.0/2.2 diverges from the 1.0 setting as either explicitly said or implied in ver 1.0 books (primarily supplements rather than core rules books). France and Japan are the two main issues that come to mind, but there are others I am not remembering at the moment (been a while since I read the big yellow book).

I should probably note I'm also a big 2300 fan, so departures from the T2K --> Traveller 2300/2300AD timeline progression may or may not seem screwed up to me in ways that aren't a problem for other T2K fans.

EDIT TO ADD: On the Franco-German Brigade, I think the basic outcome in T2K would have been France withdrawing from it when the war kicked off. Now, had those kind of limited reintegrations of France with NATO been going on in the timeframe when the game was written, it might have prompted an altered storyline (and the French were in it to win it in GDW's Third World War war game series). (And had the 2.x reboots been done better it could have.)

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Exactly right. V2.x simply expanded on V1.0 EXCEPT for the lead up to the war. You might even say the additional information in V2.x is just a continuation of V1 and should be seen by V1 sticklers as V1 canon (except where it is directly and specifically in contradiction).

Like the situation with France.

[Olefin]

I would add Japan as well to one place where V1 and V2 significantly diverge as well as Vietnam.

V1 has a large Soviet force in Vietnam where V2 doesnt - instead that force is in the Kuriles and is now fighting Japan.

another example of why V1 and V2.2 are not identical can be found in the American Combat Vehicle Handbook (Version 2) versus the US
Army Vehicle Guide of the initial timeline

1st edition US Army Vehicle Guide

2ND INFANTRY DIVISION
A pre-war regular army division stationed in Korea at Tongduchon-Ni under the command of US 8th Army. The division was first engaged against North Korean commando units on 12/19/96 and by 1/3/97 was actively engaged against mechanized elements of the North Korean Army.

2nd Edition American Combat Vehicle Handbook

2nd Infantry Division
A prewar regular army division stationed at Cam Ranh Bay, Republic of Vietnam from 1991 until 1996, when it was transferred to Korea under command of the reconstituted 8th U.S. Army. The division was first engaged against Soviet raiding units on 19 December 1996, and by 3 January 1997 was actively engaged against mechanized elements of the Red Army.


thus you have two completely different histories for the 2nd Infantry Division and where it was until 1996, with V1 saying already in Korea and V2 saying it was in Vietnam and had to be deployed to Korea

V2.2. is very contradictory on Vietnam by the way - its says the following:

Indochina: Indochina was invaded by the Chinese as it became apparent that the Soviets planned to use Cam Ranh Bay as a base against them, but they were rapidly thrown back by the Vietnamese Army (which took considerable casualties). Cam Ranh Bay and Haiphong were the targets of nuclear attacks and were devastated

Ok - if the US Army 2nd Infantry is stationed at Cam Ranh Bay then how could the Soviets be using it as a base? And if they are stationed there from 1991 to 1996 then that makes Vietnam a US ally doesnt it?

V1 and V2 may be similar but they arent the same - and France, Japan and Vietnam are three places where they definitely differ.