Dan
Warrant Officer
Posts: 258
Likes: 185
|
Post by Dan on Oct 22, 2018 12:33:18 GMT
Possibly but don't forget there will be a lot of anger at the rump EEC - if we call it that. A hell of a lot of lives have been lost in the US, UK, Spain and other places because other nations ducked out on their treaty commitments. Also I very much doubt Britain is paying its, very large at the time, subsidy to the EEC and if they try and ask for it again, let alone back-payments I think even Thatcher will probably tell them to get stuffed. Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Norway are going to be less than impressed. Also with eastern Europe if it was to get free what's going to be most important. Military security which a rump NATO can offer but the EEC manifestly can't or going from one top down economic block to another? True the EEC isn't as autocratic and contemptuous of its population as the EU now is but it would need to treat the new European states as friends rather than business opportunities, which it has a poor reputation for. This of course assumes that the Soviets don't go double or quit yet again and end up invading the continent. In which case the EEC may be in at least a bad case as the US.
Yes I know that you don't like the EU due to reason and you seem to desire being relegated to the dustbin of history, but let's be realistic: The Uk: the war has been costly and had pretty much devastated her economy, the EEC is the biggest economic partner and at the moment also the only one that will loan the funds necessary for the economic recovery; the fact that she can give her part of the money to the common budget is a given...frankly is much much much more probable that the Thatcher will go hat in hand to Bruxelles for ask fund to rebuild Great Britain and she will probably find also the US president and the Canadian Prime Minister in the waiting room. Ireland: the EEC is not a military alliance (for now) and so the rest of the group don't have any commitment towards Ireland, so there no foul in her not being military supported by them and no...people in Ireland don't want to go back to the good old time they were an economic colony of the UK (whatever bond the common war experience had created). Spain: Neither in NATO or EEC (as Greece), economy already geared towards European integration and in need of postwar assistance that at the moment only the EEC can provide Portugal and Norway: In NATO, probably some grumbling about commitment and some more hesitation to join, same situation of Spain. Not considering that at the moment the EEC is more or less the only thing that is keeping the what remain of the world commerce going and providing humanitarian, intelligence, logistic and financial help to all that nations plus the USA and Canada, and this smooth a lot of things...not considering the various British, Irish, Iberic and even American and Canadian refugee that are at the moment guest of the EEC nations. Rump NATO can't offer that much security, postwar they will be forced to demilitarize quickly to keep their economy and their military in general will be a shadow of before the war, especially in term of power projection (RN and RAF had taken a severe beating and are struggling to defend the home island) and the rest of Est European nation will gravitate in any case around the EEC economies due to the situation and the sheer size of the EEC economy I think it will fall somewhere between the two. France has been broadly supportive, certainly more so than her neutral status really should have allowed, supplying Exocets to the UK and facilitating the rapid transit of UK, Canadian and American troops back to their home nations and seeing as France is at this point the guiding force behind the EEC, then I think it will be a given that Britain's contributions will be waived for a good few years while she recovers. The main reason for this is that the contributions are based in part at least on the state of the nation's economy. Germany will not become the guiding light of the EU, if the EU happens, mostly due to their somewhat "interesting" role in the creation of this crisis, and will be seen as an unreliable player for some time yet. There will form and Anglo-Irish & Iberian bloc, (which ironically could see Gibraltar become a far less thorny question). I also think that this could spell a serious remodelling for NATO. This is an organisation that fundamentally failed to fulfil it's role - to provide a unified front in order to deter Soviet aggression. I think at the end of this the US and potentially Canada will pull out of NATO creating an Allied Atlantic Charter or the like where the US, Canada, Britain, Ireland, Spain and Portugal will be invited, France will likely be snubbed, despite their covert assistance mentioned above. In the event that the remodelling takes place, I could see the EEC taking on a defence role, the creation of a Euro-Corps structure based on NATO minus Germany, (or at least Germany on a very restrictive basis), the US and Canada, however likely with the UK, Spain and Portugal, and likely the latter three taking a leading role due to recent combat experience. Politically, I can see the Single Market, (something M.Thatcher was very much in favour of), happening very soon after the end of the war, (what better way to get cheap goods into the UK to rebuild it), although moves towards a more integrated Europe may be a little too sensitive at this time. British defence spending will remain high for some time afterwards, as will the rest of Europe, but not to the same level. I can see Britain investing in more Submarines and missile defence frigates, as well as some larger Aircraft Carriers, (likely nuclear), around the size of the Clemenceau or Foch, as well as buying the Challenger II, (brought forward a few years). the RAF will be rebuilt, and I would be unshocked to see a "SuperHarrier" - a supersonic V/STOL aircraft capable of interception and ground attack missions rather than the Eurofighter/Typhoon. However, the big question, as with the end of WWII is not quite so much about who wins the war, but who wins the peace?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Oct 22, 2018 14:48:49 GMT
Yes i know that you don't like the EU due to reason and you seem to desire being relegated to the dustbin of history, but let's be realistic: The Uk: the war has been costly and had pretty much devastated her economy, the EEC is the biggest economic patner and at the moment also the only one that will loan the funds necessary for the economic recovery; the fact that she can give her part of the money to the common budget is a given...frankly is much much much more probable that the Tatcher will go hat in hand to Bruxelles for ask fund to rebuild Great Britain and she will probably found also the US president and the Canadian Prime Minister in the waiting room. Ireland: the EEC is not a military alliance (for now) and so the rest of the group don't have any commitment towards Ireland, so there no foul in her not being military supported by them and no...people in Ireland don't want to go back to the good old time they were an economic colony of the UK (whatever bond the common war experience had created). Spain: Neither in NATO or EEC (as Greece), economy already geared towards european integration and in need of postwar assistance that at the moment only the EEC can provide Portugal and Norway: In NATO, probably some grumbling about commitment and some more esitation to join, same situation of Spain. Not considering that at the moment the EEC is more or less the only thing that is keeping the what remain of the world commerce going and providing humanitarian, intelligence, logistic and financial help to all that nations plus the USA and Canada, and this smooth a lot of things...not considering the various British, Irish, Iberic and even american and canadian refugee that are at the moment guest of the EEC nations. Rump NATO can't offer that much security, postwar they will be forced to demilitarize quickly to keep their economy and their military in general will be a shadow of before the war, expecially in term of power projection (RN and RAF had taken a severe beating and are struggling to defend the home island) and the rest of Est European nation will gravitate in any case around the EEC economies due to the situation and the sheer size of the EEC economy I think that while there won't be a lot of anger towards the EEC and more willingness to borrow money, none of the countries are going to join in the close future. The simple reason for that is that their economies are bust and if they join the rest of the EEC Will have to support them instead for years.
That would go down well, I don't think. "You don't want us until we can pay for membership."
If your talking about eastern Europe then there probably won't be much resentment against the neutrals, as opposed to what the NATO powers are feeling about them, but if they get free W Germany is almost certainly going to insist on providing some aid, probably a lot, to E Germany. Since with Britain out Germany is the only net contributor to the EEC if the rest try and object to this there will be a hell of a fuss.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Oct 22, 2018 15:13:03 GMT
Possibly but don't forget there will be a lot of anger at the rump EEC - if we call it that. A hell of a lot of lives have been lost in the US, UK, Spain and other places because other nations ducked out on their treaty commitments. Also I very much doubt Britain is paying its, very large at the time, subsidy to the EEC and if they try and ask for it again, let alone back-payments I think even Thatcher will probably tell them to get stuffed. Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Norway are going to be less than impressed. Also with eastern Europe if it was to get free what's going to be most important. Military security which a rump NATO can offer but the EEC manifestly can't or going from one top down economic block to another? True the EEC isn't as autocratic and contemptuous of its population as the EU now is but it would need to treat the new European states as friends rather than business opportunities, which it has a poor reputation for. This of course assumes that the Soviets don't go double or quit yet again and end up invading the continent. In which case the EEC may be in at least a bad case as the US.
Yes I know that you don't like the EU due to reason and you seem to desire being relegated to the dustbin of history, but let's be realistic: The Uk: the war has been costly and had pretty much devastated her economy, the EEC is the biggest economic partner and at the moment also the only one that will loan the funds necessary for the economic recovery; the fact that she can give her part of the money to the common budget is a given...frankly is much much much more probable that the Thatcher will go hat in hand to Bruxelles for ask fund to rebuild Great Britain and she will probably find also the US president and the Canadian Prime Minister in the waiting room. Ireland: the EEC is not a military alliance (for now) and so the rest of the group don't have any commitment towards Ireland, so there no foul in her not being military supported by them and no...people in Ireland don't want to go back to the good old time they were an economic colony of the UK (whatever bond the common war experience had created). Spain: Neither in NATO or EEC (as Greece), economy already geared towards European integration and in need of postwar assistance that at the moment only the EEC can provide Portugal and Norway: In NATO, probably some grumbling about commitment and some more hesitation to join, same situation of Spain. Not considering that at the moment the EEC is more or less the only thing that is keeping the what remain of the world commerce going and providing humanitarian, intelligence, logistic and financial help to all that nations plus the USA and Canada, and this smooth a lot of things...not considering the various British, Irish, Iberic and even American and Canadian refugee that are at the moment guest of the EEC nations. Rump NATO can't offer that much security, postwar they will be forced to demilitarize quickly to keep their economy and their military in general will be a shadow of before the war, especially in term of power projection (RN and RAF had taken a severe beating and are struggling to defend the home island) and the rest of Est European nation will gravitate in any case around the EEC economies due to the situation and the sheer size of the EEC economy I think it will fall somewhere between the two. France has been broadly supportive, certainly more so than her neutral status really should have allowed, supplying Exocets to the UK and facilitating the rapid transit of UK, Canadian and American troops back to their home nations and seeing as France is at this point the guiding force behind the EEC, then I think it will be a given that Britain's contributions will be waived for a good few years while she recovers. The main reason for this is that the contributions are based in part at least on the state of the nation's economy. Germany will not become the guiding light of the EU, if the EU happens, mostly due to their somewhat "interesting" role in the creation of this crisis, and will be seen as an unreliable player for some time yet.
Quite possibly. A lot depends on the details but there will be some sympathy for France in the European members of NATO, although probably not much in the US. Definitely Britain will not be paying as much to the EEC and quite probably become a net receiver of funds for a while. This would however mean that the CAP gets drastically cut back because that was taking up the majority of the EEC budget at this point and without Britain paying so much Germany won't pay everything so either France and the Benelux countries especially are likely to have to become net contributors.
This is probably another reason why if eastern Europe gains its freedom it wouldn't be welcome in the EEC, as much of their economy is agriculturally based and the last thing the EEC will want is more low income, low efficiency farmers. [E Germany excepted of course]. Also I can't remember what EEC institutions were like on questions of food quality as that might be an issue.
Quite possibly and hopefully some earlier 'Anglo'-Irish agreement which being outside the EEC wouldn't be vulnerable to sabotage by it or any successor. Your likely to see the non-belligerents being permanently excluded from the rump NATO as the US especially will no longer be willing to aid their protection. [Which may not be a great factor depending on what state the former eastern bloc is in.] Whether the latter needs some form of defensive alliance with external powers, although they will almost certainty want one. However they won't trust the Paris bloc - call it there for simplicity - as it can't supply a reliable deterrent to an attacker and a drained and resentful US may not be willing to do so. Possibly but Britain might still seek greater security in a broader organisation and also, despite Thatcher, have some concern about rebuilding their own industrial and technological base. Therefore I'm not totally sure Britain will stay in the EEC. Not so certain about this. Depends on whether there's still a clear threat from the Soviet bloc as I can't see anyone else providing a short term one. Coupled with Thatcher's desire to cut defence spending - think about what she was doing to the RN before the Falklands and the need to rebuild a lot of infrastructure even if she stays in power there's likely to be a smaller British military. Probably especially in the army as there's going to be little no demand for a large force based on the continent. Might well see the RAF as the big winner here as it will be seen as important in protecting against the sort of attack Britain has just undergone. Also probably some form of civil defence and home defence units. That's always the question. The neutral/EEC bloc will seem to have the immediate advantage, presuming they continue to be free of actual combat, but they could get complacent while they will possibly have to face higher defence spending themselves while the need to rebuild might lead in at least some of the combatants in more advanced infrastructure and the like. Also if it stays out of the war, which looks likely, India could gain a big boost from the conflict while Japan is likely to still be a very formidable economic power and might avoid the OTL fiscal collapse that has continued to cripple it.
|
|
|
Post by eurowatch on Oct 22, 2018 15:23:10 GMT
I think that while there won't be a lot of anger towards the EEC and more willingness to borrow money, none of the countries are going to join in the close future. The simple reason for that is that their economies are bust and if they join the rest of the EEC Will have to support them instead for years.
That would go down well, I don't think. "You don't want us until we can pay for membership."
If your talking about eastern Europe then there probably won't be much resentment against the neutrals, as opposed to what the NATO powers are feeling about them, but if they get free W Germany is almost certainly going to insist on providing some aid, probably a lot, to E Germany. Since with Britain out Germany is the only net contributor to the EEC if the rest try and object to this there will be a hell of a fuss.
Should they then take in countries that Will be a drain on their economy for years?
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Oct 22, 2018 19:04:24 GMT
I think it will fall somewhere between the two. France has been broadly supportive, certainly more so than her neutral status really should have allowed, supplying Exocets to the UK and facilitating the rapid transit of UK, Canadian and American troops back to their home nations and seeing as France is at this point the guiding force behind the EEC, then I think it will be a given that Britain's contributions will be waived for a good few years while she recovers. The main reason for this is that the contributions are based in part at least on the state of the nation's economy. Germany will not become the guiding light of the EU, if the EU happens, mostly due to their somewhat "interesting" role in the creation of this crisis, and will be seen as an unreliable player for some time yet.
Quite possibly. A lot depends on the details but there will be some sympathy for France in the European members of NATO, although probably not much in the US. Definitely Britain will not be paying as much to the EEC and quite probably become a net receiver of funds for a while. This would however mean that the CAP gets drastically cut back because that was taking up the majority of the EEC budget at this point and without Britain paying so much Germany won't pay everything so either France and the Benelux countries especially are likely to have to become net contributors.
This is probably another reason why if eastern Europe gains its freedom it wouldn't be welcome in the EEC, as much of their economy is agriculturally based and the last thing the EEC will want is more low income, low efficiency farmers. [E Germany excepted of course]. Also I can't remember what EEC institutions were like on questions of food quality as that might be an issue.
Quite possibly and hopefully some earlier 'Anglo'-Irish agreement which being outside the EEC wouldn't be vulnerable to sabotage by it or any successor. Your likely to see the non-belligerents being permanently excluded from the rump NATO as the US especially will no longer be willing to aid their protection. [Which may not be a great factor depending on what state the former eastern bloc is in.] Whether the latter needs some form of defensive alliance with external powers, although they will almost certainty want one. However they won't trust the Paris bloc - call it there for simplicity - as it can't supply a reliable deterrent to an attacker and a drained and resentful US may not be willing to do so. Possibly but Britain might still seek greater security in a broader organisation and also, despite Thatcher, have some concern about rebuilding their own industrial and technological base. Therefore I'm not totally sure Britain will stay in the EEC. Not so certain about this. Depends on whether there's still a clear threat from the Soviet bloc as I can't see anyone else providing a short term one. Coupled with Thatcher's desire to cut defence spending - think about what she was doing to the RN before the Falklands and the need to rebuild a lot of infrastructure even if she stays in power there's likely to be a smaller British military. Probably especially in the army as there's going to be little no demand for a large force based on the continent. Might well see the RAF as the big winner here as it will be seen as important in protecting against the sort of attack Britain has just undergone. Also probably some form of civil defence and home defence units. That's always the question. The neutral/EEC bloc will seem to have the immediate advantage, presuming they continue to be free of actual combat, but they could get complacent while they will possibly have to face higher defence spending themselves while the need to rebuild might lead in at least some of the combatants in more advanced infrastructure and the like. Also if it stays out of the war, which looks likely, India could gain a big boost from the conflict while Japan is likely to still be a very formidable economic power and might avoid the OTL fiscal collapse that has continued to cripple it.
Ireland will want some back up for any Anglo-irish agreement and if we want be realistic, they will trust the UK even less of the URSS due to a lot of historical reason...and the EEC as the EU in OTL represent a neutral place where both side can talk; not considering that the UK need also to decide remain on the EEC and receive more economic aid and be part of the common market or leave the EEC and receive less, she can't have both. Plus don't overstimate the importance of the UK for the EEC, sure it was important...but not that important that without her the project collapse, that honor belong to France and Germany (the EEC existed before the UK memberships and frankly London was always against further integration) and the net contribution was lessened by the rebate and all the other perks negotiated by the various british goverment. I also believe that CAP need reform, but with the international situation in such shape, food production in overdrive mood will last some more years
Military spending postwar will be very dependendant to the economic situation and the need to rebuild, without a clear menace i don't see any of the fighting nation having enough will and capital to continue to have a big defense budget for a while.
While France had took the leadership of the EEC, Germany will always remain the heart of any continental economic recovery, and i include east europe and the fighting nation; Berlin knows it, Paris knows it...hell London, Madrid and Washington knows it. Taking E. Germany will take her tool on W. Germany economy but on the other hand there will be a lot of demand for reconstruction in North America and other place and frankly nobody is in good shape enough to be very difficult about were the money/help/material come from. This mean influence and soft power
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Oct 22, 2018 19:18:33 GMT
(268)December 1984: New York Another great update James. So we see President Glenn in action, nice. Thanks. Yep, and he isn't taking prisoners. Being a wartime president means doing this. James
Given the the war started in October getting any new forces by the end of February seems very early, unless those are say veterans with previous experience or reservists or something like that. Otherwise while they might be eager their going to be very raw, which with modern weapons could costly for them. Not to mention having decided to get 1/3 of the force early to try and win before too many civilians die or Soviet reinforcements prompt a return to nuclear weapons - as I can't see the US accepting a conventional one - then deciding to get 1/2 the force in the same time seems to be pushing their luck a lot.
The US action in regards to Ecuador and Venezuela is technically illegal but there's a hell of a lot going on that's worse so I can't see any complains being listed to. Especially of course if the US doesn't lose as then its will still be the 888lb gorilla of the Americas.
Probably a wise move for Glenn not to cross the Atlantic. Not sure if it would be worthwhile trying a television link for a conference as that might be intercepted and possibly used for targeting by the Soviets. Would suspect that the assorted undersea cables, that were still pretty important at the time I suspect have already been cut in most cases. In fact given the number of assassinations that the Soviets were involved in and that there might still be Spatniz groups in hiding I suspect Glenn is having to be a very secret President, only being seen on TV by most Americans.
Steve
You're correct there. This isn't the best thing to do. It will cost lives, many of them. The alternative was to wait though, longer and longer. Here they can use what new forces what they can to join with what is already there and have a go at winning the war now. There was some deniability with the tanker attacks but they had to be done. Glenn will be very limited visibility wise. He will not be out and about and seen on television with recorded appearances too. I hadn't thought about those cables: I should have addressed that before. The update after next is naval so I will add that in, thank you. Oh, and during December, an Atlantic crossing is very dangerous... unless you chose to go via Concorde and saw 'catch me if you can'. I like the way that the two defectors is playing out. So, what are the odds that: 1) Both defectors are genuine, but from different factions? 2) Both defectors are fake. 3) Peppermint is genuine, Workman is fake to discredit Peppermint. 4) Peppermint is fake and Workman is genuine. There are ways to work it out however it's a game of "I always tell the truth/he always lies". On the bright side, if the creation of NCSS gets the bugs worked out then sorting this mystery will be NCSS' first intelligence victory. Thank you. I have thought about this situation for a while, since I came up with the defector idea who told all those good stories. You missed Option 5: the author is still unsure of where this goes. That is an interesting idea on the long-term effect, one I hadn't thought of. Edit: Also, Golitsyn and Nosenko, and Angelton's mess with that, was never resolved in the end, was it? Both men died in 2008 IIRC, still sticking to their stories.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Oct 22, 2018 19:20:43 GMT
(269)
December 1984: San Antonio
El Paso was the centre of KGB and other Soviet political activity inside occupied parts of the United States though San Antonio was where military command was centralised. The Soviets and their allies – with the former in the ‘guiding role’: dominating the others – were making use of military bases they had taken over inside the latter city. These sites were well-defended and all around them were civilian areas where those present were forced to stay in-place. Local security would have been improved if those civilians were gone, yet without them there, the military sites would certainly have been targeted far heavier than they had been from the air. Since significant use had been made of Brooks AFB and Fort Sam Houston, few air strikes had come and none of them doing much damage. That changed when the Americans put a laser-guided bombs into each of them early in the month. These came from aircraft undetected by air defence radars near and far and therefore not fired upon by the anti-aircraft guns & S-300V surface-to-air missiles. Those aircraft were F-117s who made accurate hits, killing many and causing great destruction. Try as hard as they might, the US Air Force still inflicted civilian casualties though because high-tech magic bombs were still bombs falling from the sky after all. Soviet propaganda was fast to make much out of this. The numbers of dead and injured were inflated greatly and the KGB brought across the American media teams under their complete control to cover the ‘atrocity’ and see the ‘hundreds of casualties’. Flown in from El Paso, a camera crew from the NBC network snatched by the KGB in the war’s early days – a well-known television journalist, a cameraman, a sound technician, the producer and a production assistant – broadcast images of American children killed by American bombers. As to the strike itself, propaganda issues aside, the US Air Force considered it a success. They had used their few radar-deflecting F-117s elsewhere earlier in the war and seen two of them lost: one over Arizona and the second above the Gulf of Mexico. A stand-down had occurred afterwards where investigations were conducted into how they were lost and there was also a big counter-intelligence operation within the F-117 planning set-up too with the result being an arrest made of someone suspected of working for the GRU. One traitor hadn’t caused both aircraft to be lost though. It had been bad tactics, overconfidence in the capabilities of them to avoid detection and also some rotten luck. The F-117s were back in action through December with the San Antonio mission joining others made in Texas against less high-profile military sites and also seeing them sent over both Cuba & Antigua too. Things were done differently with them and this paid off. The reports of success from the San Antonio attack came from the fact that both aircraft involved weren’t engaged and post-strike reconnaissance done which pointed to near-perfect hits upon the targets selected. Electronic eavesdropping also pointed to snippets of conversations made unguarded over the radio which suggested that someone very senior in the enemy command set-up had been killed.
A pair of generals had been killed in San Antonio, one from the Nicaraguan Army and another from the Soviet Army too. Neither was of any real importance though: American snoopers had misunderstood what they heard. Someone whom the Americans would have really liked to have seen killed would have been the newly-appointed operational theatre commander who’d not long arrived here. General V. N. Lobov (he wanted his marshal’s stars: he’d get them if he won the war here in America) had been sent to replace a man who’d failed and paid for that failure with his life. The raid missed Lobov because he was rarely there in San Antonio. When he came to the city, it was for the shortest time possible before then he would travel back up again into the Texas Hill Country and the hidden network of smaller and mobile command facilities there rather than what he saw as the massive target which was San Antonio. Fort Sam Houston was used for propaganda anyway. It was not somewhere which could be a command facility of any great use. Lobov’s predecessor had used it much, overseeing the extensive defensive preparations and those would stay in-place under the new theatre commander too: showing the Americans that move elsewhere would be rather silly. Revolutionary Mexico’s president, Tirado López himself, the man who was first a plaything of the Sandinistas then Castro before finally answerable to Moscow, was someone who came to San Antonio in December. His country’s capital was a radioactive hole in the ground, millions of his people were dead and his nation was ravaged by war, yet he came to play tourist. Tirado López visited The Alamo. Promises made to him before the war referred to ownership of that historic site as well as San Antonio, Texas and the wider American South-West. These were promises that only a fool would have believed would ever be honored. Tirado López was that fool, at The Alamo posing for pictures and making a bombastic speech. Other Mexicans were in the city too. There were forced conscripts everywhere on security duties along with officers in pretty uniforms promoted to non-important roles in the military administration. They were at the bottom of the pile of contempt that the Soviets had for all of their Latin American allies. Warm bodies to soak up American bullets anywhere they could be used for that purpose was what the Soviets used the Mexicans for and this was a method which their other so-called allies had been copying too as the Cubans, Guatemalans and Nicaraguans did the same thing with Revolutionary Mexico troops as well. More Mexicans arrived every day, trucked over the border and spread throughout the war zone after transiting through San Antonio.
Lobov was forced to meet with Tirado López when the latter was in San Antonio though at the meeting there was nothing of any substance to it. This was during one of the general’s rare visits into the city. A following briefing given at Fort Sam Houston – the Mexicans were eager for the facility to be renamed – the same day was the reason for Lobov’s appearance. Stavka’s second-in-command came to San Antonio along with a pair of admirals from the Soviet Navy. They discussed with Lobov the ongoing shortages and how the air route for supplies had come under recent immense strain due to American action taken in West Africa. The sea supply route using the South Atlantic was in grave danger of being fully lost too. The only resupply & reinforcement route where there was any success being seen remained the North Atlantic routing and this had seen only occasional shipping come recently. Lobov was waiting on major reinforcement let alone resupply for forces already under his control. His orders were to win the war come the Spring, starting at the beginning of March though earlier if possible. Going up onto the Great Plains, he intended, and head north and east to beat the Americans on the battlefield. This couldn’t be done, not with all the will in the world, if his armies weren’t issued with supplies and new forces. The visitors from Moscow told Lobov that he would be seeing what was needed come the end of the month. The admirals had some news for him, something of a surprise. A good surprise but still something unexpected. They afterwards began their – long-winded – journey back home and in the days following the visit, Lobov was skeptical of what he had been told. How was the North Atlantic going to be fully opened and not one but two major convoys, each with dozens upon dozens of heavily-laden ships which were all escorted, going to get through and reach the Caribbean by the first days of the New Year?
Coming back to San Antonio on New Year’s Eve, Lobov discovered that the optimism from those visitors (apparently the flight with the admirals aboard didn’t make it home; the marshal from Stavka did though) was more than that. They had been confident and that was paying off. One of the two convoys was clearing the passage between Cuba and Haiti. The other was taking the longer way around, coming through the island chain of the Lesser Antilles. The pair of them were both heading for Texan ports – avoiding the battered remains of those harbours in Cuba – at full speed. Lobov and the armies he led would be getting their resupply and reinforcement. What had happened during December out in the North Atlantic to see this occur?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Oct 22, 2018 20:50:26 GMT
That would go down well, I don't think. "You don't want us until we can pay for membership."
If your talking about eastern Europe then there probably won't be much resentment against the neutrals, as opposed to what the NATO powers are feeling about them, but if they get free W Germany is almost certainly going to insist on providing some aid, probably a lot, to E Germany. Since with Britain out Germany is the only net contributor to the EEC if the rest try and object to this there will be a hell of a fuss.
Should they then take in countries that Will be a drain on their economy for years?
It depends on how long or short sighted they are. If they want to leave eastern Europe poor, unstable and exposed then they will probably face a lot of immigration by refugees, crime etc. Basically the same reason the US found the Marshall Plan beneficial for it after WWII. If they want to develop it, both boosting its stability and future productivity and hence its ability to contribute to the future wealth of Europe. Basically do they think its a zero sum game?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Oct 22, 2018 21:20:24 GMT
Quite possibly. A lot depends on the details but there will be some sympathy for France in the European members of NATO, although probably not much in the US. Definitely Britain will not be paying as much to the EEC and quite probably become a net receiver of funds for a while. This would however mean that the CAP gets drastically cut back because that was taking up the majority of the EEC budget at this point and without Britain paying so much Germany won't pay everything so either France and the Benelux countries especially are likely to have to become net contributors.
This is probably another reason why if eastern Europe gains its freedom it wouldn't be welcome in the EEC, as much of their economy is agriculturally based and the last thing the EEC will want is more low income, low efficiency farmers. [E Germany excepted of course]. Also I can't remember what EEC institutions were like on questions of food quality as that might be an issue.
Quite possibly and hopefully some earlier 'Anglo'-Irish agreement which being outside the EEC wouldn't be vulnerable to sabotage by it or any successor. Your likely to see the non-belligerents being permanently excluded from the rump NATO as the US especially will no longer be willing to aid their protection. [Which may not be a great factor depending on what state the former eastern bloc is in.] Whether the latter needs some form of defensive alliance with external powers, although they will almost certainty want one. However they won't trust the Paris bloc - call it there for simplicity - as it can't supply a reliable deterrent to an attacker and a drained and resentful US may not be willing to do so. Possibly but Britain might still seek greater security in a broader organisation and also, despite Thatcher, have some concern about rebuilding their own industrial and technological base. Therefore I'm not totally sure Britain will stay in the EEC. Not so certain about this. Depends on whether there's still a clear threat from the Soviet bloc as I can't see anyone else providing a short term one. Coupled with Thatcher's desire to cut defence spending - think about what she was doing to the RN before the Falklands and the need to rebuild a lot of infrastructure even if she stays in power there's likely to be a smaller British military. Probably especially in the army as there's going to be little no demand for a large force based on the continent. Might well see the RAF as the big winner here as it will be seen as important in protecting against the sort of attack Britain has just undergone. Also probably some form of civil defence and home defence units. That's always the question. The neutral/EEC bloc will seem to have the immediate advantage, presuming they continue to be free of actual combat, but they could get complacent while they will possibly have to face higher defence spending themselves while the need to rebuild might lead in at least some of the combatants in more advanced infrastructure and the like. Also if it stays out of the war, which looks likely, India could gain a big boost from the conflict while Japan is likely to still be a very formidable economic power and might avoid the OTL fiscal collapse that has continued to cripple it.
Ireland will want some back up for any Anglo-irish agreement and if we want be realistic, they will trust the UK even less of the URSS due to a lot of historical reason...and the EEC as the EU in OTL represent a neutral place where both side can talk; not considering that the UK need also to decide remain on the EEC and receive more economic aid and be part of the common market or leave the EEC and receive less, she can't have both.
For those Irish who stay deluded about the ability to conquer Ulster yes but I think the common fight for survival is going to be a bonding factor for many. There will always be the extremists and groups like the IRA for who conflict and fear is important for maintaining their influence. However most people will want to have peace and stability. If they look elsewhere for guarantees for any such treaty it could be the rump EEC or it could be US and the latter is probably going to be preferred.
I don't at all. However if the UK isn't contributing someone else is going to have to step in. If there's also demand for rebuilding the combatants and for helping eastern Europe, plus the general increased poverty of the world reducing trade someone's going to have to spend a lot. The EEC is going to have to change drastically to maintain what it was let alone play a part in reconstruction and rebuilding world stability. Just saying that it can't rely on Britain and Germany funding it anymore. Could be wrong but IIRC the partial refunding hasn't occurred yet.
Possibly as the massive stockpiles may have been drawn down a bit during the war but seeking to build them up again would mean yet more spending. They could try dumping it on world markets but that would not only mean heavy financial losses but make them deeply unpopular.
Agreed. Assuming there is no clear menace military spending will be cut back considerable. A possible exception might be the US depending on how things develop there are they could feel they need to replace soft power with hard in places like much of the Caribbean.
Possibly. This depends on what sort of terms the EEC offer for such reconstruction. If its short term high interest loans their likely to be told to get lost. The allies will still have a lot of industrial capacity, especially including Japan and possibly S Korea, although the latter could be in a bad way. Having been stung once by the 'EEC' if only offered that their likely to work together to rebuild themselves, albeit at a slightly slower rate. Don't underestimate the mistrust there will be of the powers who deserted them.
If the EEC offers genuine aid then that's a different matter. However its traditionally been a fairly myopic protectionist body that only looks after its short term interests, rather like eurowatch says so it could take the wrong choice. In that case I could easily see Britain and probably then Ireland leaving the EEC to link up with their wartime allies for reconstruction.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Oct 22, 2018 21:33:22 GMT
James
A very good question as to how those two convoys have got so far. Can the US - and by this stage its only them - stop or seriously reduce those convoys? Well 1st the question is how much do they know about them? I know your hinted that the convoy taking the S Atlantic route is likely to run into problems but not sure how those others have got across the N Atlantic. True the Soviets have bases at Iceland and in the Azores but it would be hoped that the USN would be seeking to put a serious lock on movement across the Atlantic. Especially of Soviet reinforcements for the invasion of the US.
Sounds like there's going to be some details on actions in the next chapter and looking forward to it.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Oct 23, 2018 0:52:26 GMT
Ireland will want some back up for any Anglo-irish agreement and if we want be realistic, they will trust the UK even less of the URSS due to a lot of historical reason...and the EEC as the EU in OTL represent a neutral place where both side can talk; not considering that the UK need also to decide remain on the EEC and receive more economic aid and be part of the common market or leave the EEC and receive less, she can't have both.
For those Irish who stay deluded about the ability to conquer Ulster yes but I think the common fight for survival is going to be a bonding factor for many. There will always be the extremists and groups like the IRA for who conflict and fear is important for maintaining their influence. However most people will want to have peace and stability. If they look elsewhere for guarantees for any such treaty it could be the rump EEC or it could be US and the latter is probably going to be preferred.
Sorry, but i doubt that 5 or 6 months of fighting together will cancell...well all the trouble of Anglo-Irish history and the sentiment of lack of trust i fear is much much more widespread that you want to admit if one consider how Ireland is responding at the Brexit. They become somewhat better? Sure, people will want to go back as before the EEC? No, as many have pointed membership there had brought economic independence from the UK.
Regarding the funding, well...the EEC will manage as always and the UK rebate started in 1984, the rest of the nations will be 'forced' to pay more to rebuild the rest of Europe? Yes, but as before it will be necessary, sure it will be more limited Western Europe and North America and whatever left to Eastern Europe, nevertheless it will be done (even with some grumble as ususal)
Food production will be destinated to keep people in Uk, Spain, Ireland and Estern Europe from starving and so causing a bigger refugee crisis.
Regarding Japan, sorry but at the moment is basically an island sized Denver, in 1985 it had a rate of food self sufficiency lower than the 50% and imported a great deal of oil, between the various attack and the oil embargo by the communist held nation in ME; basically if Western Europe is struggling, the general japanese situation will be horrible for the population. South Korea will be stuck on rebuildind North Korea and has been the site of more of a dozen nuclear explosion plus 5 months of grueling land war, so i doubt that they will be on the list of nation capable of giving help. The rest of South East Asia will have to deal with the fallout of the war in China and the crash of the Vietnamese goverment and an epic refugee crisis
So, while the EEC terms will be hardly draconian, why they will do that except because they are mustache twirling villain and they have a compulsion to do that while laughting maniacally...it's not that there will be a lot of other place that will give this kind of help
And don't make your dislike for the European Union cloud your opinion about how she will treat the UK and the rest of the nations or how had traditionally behaved
|
|
lueck
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 28
Likes: 11
|
Post by lueck on Oct 23, 2018 8:01:51 GMT
the American fleet take losses at the beginning of the war, I wondering if the remaining carrier groups are out of position or did the soviet navy kill or mission kill the naval assets in the northern sea area to get the convoys into north American waters.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Oct 23, 2018 9:53:15 GMT
For those Irish who stay deluded about the ability to conquer Ulster yes but I think the common fight for survival is going to be a bonding factor for many. There will always be the extremists and groups like the IRA for who conflict and fear is important for maintaining their influence. However most people will want to have peace and stability. If they look elsewhere for guarantees for any such treaty it could be the rump EEC or it could be US and the latter is probably going to be preferred.
Sorry, but i doubt that 5 or 6 months of fighting together will cancell...well all the trouble of Anglo-Irish history and the sentiment of lack of trust i fear is much much more widespread that you want to admit if one consider how Ireland is responding at the Brexit. They become somewhat better? Sure, people will want to go back as before the EEC? No, as many have pointed membership there had brought economic independence from the UK.
Regarding the funding, well...the EEC will manage as always and the UK rebate started in 1984, the rest of the nations will be 'forced' to pay more to rebuild the rest of Europe? Yes, but as before it will be necessary, sure it will be more limited Western Europe and North America and whatever left to Eastern Europe, nevertheless it will be done (even with some grumble as ususal)
Food production will be destinated to keep people in Uk, Spain, Ireland and Estern Europe from starving and so causing a bigger refugee crisis.
Regarding Japan, sorry but at the moment is basically an island sized Denver, in 1985 it had a rate of food self sufficiency lower than the 50% and imported a great deal of oil, between the various attack and the oil embargo by the communist held nation in ME; basically if Western Europe is struggling, the general japanese situation will be horrible for the population. South Korea will be stuck on rebuildind North Korea and has been the site of more of a dozen nuclear explosion plus 5 months of grueling land war, so i doubt that they will be on the list of nation capable of giving help. The rest of South East Asia will have to deal with the fallout of the war in China and the crash of the Vietnamese goverment and an epic refugee crisis
So, while the EEC terms will be hardly draconian, why they will do that except because they are mustache twirling villain and they have a compulsion to do that while laughting maniacally...it's not that there will be a lot of other place that will give this kind of help
And don't make your dislike for the European Union cloud your opinion about how she will treat the UK and the rest of the nations or how had traditionally behaved
No a period of fighting won't cancel out the mistrust on both sides. However it will reduce it, possibly substantially whereas both nations will be pissed off at their desertion by the continental powers. Also America is quite well positioned to act as a guarantor to any treaty. Just because some people think the EU is the centre of the universe doesn't mean it actually is.
As you point out OTL the rebate was only starting about now. Here Britain isn't going to continue to be a major payer at all, whether it stays in or leaves so the EEC is going to have to fill in the gap completely, even if it pays nothing to help rebuild the European combatants, two of which are EEC member states, or anything to help restore stability to eastern Europe. Don't forget that at this point OTL it only consisted of 10 states and Greece's status, if it actually joined here is extremely bad economically as well. Three [including Greece] have been knocked about by the war and some of the others have seen problems. Which might prompt some reforms but alternatively could see it going into an EU ever closer union state even earlier, in which case its very likely to lose Britain at least and be highly unattractive to eastern Europe and probably going to turn even more into itself.
Japan has problems but your assuming that the Soviets are launching a major blockade of the country. As I understand it the Soviet naval forces have taken a fair battering and the nuclear strike on Vladivostok will have made that worse. Also the prime Soviet aim is aiding their forces in N America while Japan has a powerful fleet of its own. As such it will definitely have problem but its got access to oil from SEA and OTL had done a lot to reduce consumption after the 1st oil crisis in 73 while Australasia can probably supply a good quantity of food even if none from further afield. Also in the crisis of a war and with a lot of exports cut off oil consumption has probably dropped markedly. As such I think that, unless of course it suffers a lot more damage, Japan should be in a good position to bounce back quickly once the war ends. Agree that S Korea will have problems but depending on whether it suffers further attacks or a substantial occupation as to how it will be post-war. Suspect China will be a markedly higher priority for the Soviet forces being sent eastwards. [Note here I wasn't assuming it would itself be giving aid but it would still be a non-trivial power in the alliance bloc that could appear, militarily and economically, after the war.]
You seem to be assuming that the allies will be totally prostrate after the war, similar to Germany and much of Europe after WWII. However the war has been much shorter and except for parts of Norway and S Korean and a still relatively small proportion of the US they have avoided occupation. The US and Japan will still be the two top industrial powers in the world and Britain was substantially more significant then than now while there are other allies largely untouched by war, including Canada and Australasia. It would be a bit more difficult but their perfectly capable if necessary to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. As such it would depend on how the EEC makes its approach and how much distrust there is of it by the allies. [As Eurowatch said they could take a zero sum view as the EU has done more recently in which case they probably won't good a good reaction.] Note also that the allies have a massive surplus in food production themselves, even with some disruption to the US so over-priced EEC food isn't going to be that attractive. Hence you can forget about using them to reduce the food mountains unless the EEC is going to take a big hit by selling it as international prices.
I do dislike the EU, along with other unpleasant groups that treat others with contempt, as you would know from this site. Amazing how somebody persistently lying about you, threatening you and insulting you can make you dislike them isn't it. As I've said I view Barnier and co with the same level of distrust as with most of the politicians in the UK. Its based on their performance.
I do rather fear that we are rather hi-jacking the thread. Lets see what James actually does and then possibly discuss/quarrel about it afterwards.
PS I will fully agree that the problems might not be all on the EEC side. You are likely to see a number of political figures, especially probably in the US, thinking they deserve some compensation for the continental desertion and hence looking for aid rather than loans. Given the possibly language used this could put a few backs up in the EEC bloc.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Oct 23, 2018 10:26:47 GMT
the American fleet take losses at the beginning of the war, I wondering if the remaining carrier groups are out of position or did the soviet navy kill or mission kill the naval assets in the northern sea area to get the convoys into north American waters.
Sorry, nearly overlooks this. It could be that this is the case, especially since some under-strength probes into Norweign Sea have proved rather costly failures the allies haven't managed to keep a good eye on events in the N Atlantic in time to move forces to intercept. Britain has been left without substantial support and the loss of northern Norway and Iceland means forward bases for deteching Soviet movements have been lost. Even so if forces got through the GIUK gap they still have to cross the entire Atlantic and their heading for the Caribbean rather than N America itself so have to swing around the latter to some degree, increasing the distance to be traveled. Alternatively those convoys might have got through the Med, although this seems unlikely with Iberia being united in the allied camp. [Although I would have thought that satellites would be very useful here either way.]
Be interesting to see what James has thought up but if those two convoys have got so far across the Atlantic without being substantially attacked, or even possibly detected, then things are going really wrong for the USN and USAF. Unless their planning a major couple of ambushes or there has already been hard fighting.
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Oct 23, 2018 10:41:47 GMT
THe soviet don't need a blockade, they already control directly and indirectly the ME oil producers and if they don't sell to the EEC they will not sell to Japan. SEA oil production by now is only in the beginning stage, plus with China at war and Vietnam meltdown, they had their hand full on an humanitarian crisis at hom and can't sell to Japan that much oil, except Indonesia, but this also depend on her stance regard the war and how her internal situation is. The problem is also delivery, till Vladivostock the Pacific even if firm in US allies hand was still a war zone with air, naval and submarine attack to ships, plus i doubt that the soviet will have left the Japanese port alone in their attack. While Japan had done work to lowering her dependence to oil and the export market had basically halted, he also fight a war unlike the EEC and it's very resources consuming.
Norway and the UK will also being deprived of North Sea oil for some (long) time and rebuild everything will be long and costly as special (and expensive) material was needed to build and mantain the oil drill station due to the harsh weather.
The war has been shorter sure, but still pretty destructive and nuclear bomb and chemical weapons has been used pretty extensively and frankly modern economy and infrastructure are much more fragile. Just in the last update we had seen that the New Orleans port had been severerly damaged and also Florida is under attack or more precisely her infrastructure in various commando raid. OTL Los Angeles riot cost 1 billion in damage, OTL 9/11 around 50 billion, Hurricane Katrina 125 billion...and at this stage the USA had suffered more than 10 times that damage and the war continue, plus it's all the indirect financial damage due to the dollar crash and the initial panic stage and the long term consequence of the dollar not being the top currency for sometime
Regarding the EU, just because some people think is an hive of wretched scum is not true and regarding lying, threatheing and insult, well you are right...just that i don't have in mind the EU leadership and various goverment in this case but someone else. More specifically in ITTL the only three nation in Europe that can say that have been deserted are Portugal, Norway and the UK and all that will need help to recover...and are still in the war thanks to european help.
|
|