|
Post by redrobin65 on Oct 27, 2018 3:31:28 GMT
Uh oh. If the Soviets are succesful, taking Zealand and Southern Sweden, the Baltic Fleet can cause a ton of issues for supplying Allied forces in Norway.
Then again, I don't think that opening up yet another front is the best idea. They have right now:
Mainland United States (Texas, Colorado, etc)
Alaska
Caribbean
Atlantic (Iceland, Azores, etc)
Air War over UK
Norway
China
Korea
Pacific
And I'm sure there are others that I forgot. Besides, attacking the Danes/Swedes will not sit well in Paris or Brussels.
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Oct 27, 2018 8:24:08 GMT
Oh well, european neutrality has been nice till lasted...as i doubt that the EEC will look the other way in this crisis, as it too near to home and frankly not only Sweden has probably been a close patner both economical and political in this tiring time but more or less considered an unofficial member; plus Bruxelles can't allow neither further encirclment or a neutral being menaced in this manner, plus there is the little fact of the URSS kindnapping a little child to blackmail the president of France. Palme option are three: - cave in and let the Soviet do what they want...and become little more than Finland - resist and enter the war - try a diplomatic hail mary and ask immediate accesion to the EEC, hoping that this will deter the soviet for a while. One must also consider that Palme was a true believer in Swedish neutrality and can be hard from him ask help even to the neutral EEC (more due to the fact that Bruxelles had a different concept of neutralty )...still desperate time, desperate solution. On Bruxelles side the least that i expect is the various ambassadors protesting soviet behaviour and start sending menace, plus a massive reinforcement of Denmark
|
|
Dan
Warrant Officer
Posts: 258
Likes: 185
|
Post by Dan on Oct 27, 2018 9:33:25 GMT
I think the Swedish police, intelligence and special forces will be on standby to nip as many Spetsnaz attacks in bud ASAP. They'll be coming because it's standard Soviet operating procedures. Target vocal opponents through smears, blackmail, assassination attempts, bombings. The moment they get a "No" from the Swedes, Chemical attacks and a ground invasion.
Most Swedish tanks will either be Centurion based, 50's designs or the rather effective STRV-103 - the S tank. It's a low profile ambush specialist. Between that and the man portable anti tank missiles the Swedes have, any ground invasion is likely to be thrown back hard. At that point the Soviets have two choices: accept it and sell the action as "a suitable punishment for the Swedes who have now learned their lesson", (to be followed up with smaller naval and commando attacks), or they go Nuclear, and we say goodbye to Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö.
The Swedes are in a tough place and likely to have to chose how much they're prepared to suffer.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,117
Likes: 49,494
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 27, 2018 10:05:10 GMT
[ Good update James, and congratulations on 50,000 views on the timeline. That you, more to come. Jeez, that is rather a lot. Yep, this thread is only the fourth to reach the 50,000 view mark and only the third to reach the 100 page mark and only the second to reach the 150 page mark, so it is doing nicely.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Oct 27, 2018 10:12:35 GMT
[ That you, more to come. Jeez, that is rather a lot. Yep, this thread is only the fourth to reach the 50,000 view mark and only the third to reach the 100 page mark and only the second to reach the 150 page mark, so it is doing nicely.
Bloody hell there are longer threads!! Or are they general discussion ones possibly? Thought this was by some way the longest TL I've seen on the site.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,117
Likes: 49,494
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 27, 2018 10:15:16 GMT
Yep, this thread is only the fourth to reach the 50,000 view mark and only the third to reach the 100 page mark and only the second to reach the 150 page mark, so it is doing nicely. Bloody hell there are longer threads!! Or are they general discussion ones possibly? Thought this was by some way the longest TL I've seen on the site.
Those two threads are found in the Anime, Manga and Animated Shows sub-board and are mostly between me and eurowatch posting pictures of cute girls, this TL is the longest and by far the most active on the forum as we speak.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Oct 27, 2018 10:42:33 GMT
James
Very good use of Tiger force and glad the UK had the sense to make only two raids. Its done some damage, which will hopefully take some pressure off the UK and Norway while the Soviet response has tied up a lot of forces that could be used elsewhere, which might be the single biggest bonus. Hopefully not too many local civilians suffer in the aftermath.
I'm a bit very dubious about the idea of an invasion of occupied Norway however, at least unless and until the US has cleared its homeland and been able to send a lot of air and naval forces, if not marines. Britain having been forced to fight pretty much alone after the collapse of NATO doesn't have the strength. The desertion of the former allies means its basically having to hang on and do as much damage to the Soviet forces attacking it and seeking to force their way into the Atlantic. And all this before a Soviet occupation of Sweden which seems increasingly likely.
Not at all surprised about Finland's reaction. Given how close they are to the Soviet heartland, even through the destruction of Leningrad complicates that they can't really do anything else as fighting would be pointless. Even if Sweden would offer full military support the pair could inflict some nasty losses but they would go down eventually and both the fighting and the aftermath would be very bad for the people of both nations. Especially since there would be no help from the continental neutrals.
This is the problem for Sweden now. Their very unlikely to get any support as if the neutrals are unwilling to fight for formal allies their unlikely to do so for a nation that wasn't a member and who's occupation would be less of a threat than if the UK went down, which would render their position pretty much defenseless. Even if the Soviets have also threatened Denmark as well their unlikely to change their mind and suddenly decide to go to war.
There is one possible option that Metterrand might try if he's willing to commit to it and also knows about the demand on Sweden. Unlike the other major powers of the neutrals France isn't threatened by invasion. Italy also lacks a border with the Soviets but are vulnerable to sea attack, although they don't know about the upcoming conflict between the Soviets and Libya. It can threaten that if further neutrals are attacked then France will join the conflict. This wouldn't help the Swedes much, or the Danes if attacked but would really help the other European allies as the French air and naval forces, so far untouched would be thrown into the fray. Also it would link up more effectively the European members of the alliance. France would be likely to see some attacks but would be largely buffered by Britain to the north and French air units forward based there could come in very useful. It means a net loss for the Soviets as as well as some heavy fighting before the Soviets go down the French forces would make exerting force into the Atlantic and the attack on Britain more difficult. Unless they up the ante by attacking the rest of the neutrals as they would have to go through W Germany to reach France. This would finally drive the rest of the neutrals off the fence and also any forces approaching French territory would risk French nuclear response.
Not saying they would do this, especially since if they were willing it would upset the rest of the neutral bloc but otherwise their likely to continue to be picked off, one way or another, one by one. Also I suspect that Vorotnikov would assume from past experience that they were bluffing and if they weren't he would probably go for a full scale invasion of western Europe. Which would be very bloody and might not work given the the neutrals, if they have any sense would have been not only moblising reserves but also building up ammo stockpiles and weapons in general. At least if they have any sense at all. Alternatively that might be a move that would trigger a coup against him but as you mention your not planning on a route where the Soviet empire survives the war. However its something that the French government should at least be thinking about. - Specifying France because its the only power big enough to make a real difference and not too vulnerable to Soviet attacks.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Oct 27, 2018 10:43:14 GMT
Bloody hell there are longer threads!! Or are they general discussion ones possibly? Thought this was by some way the longest TL I've seen on the site.
Those two threads are found in the Anime, Manga and Animated Shows sub-board and are mostly between me and eurowatch posting pictures of cute girls, this TL is the longest and by far the most active on the forum as we speak.
OK thanks. Thought it might be something like that.
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Oct 27, 2018 11:09:57 GMT
James
Very good use of Tiger force and glad the UK had the sense to make only two raids. Its done some damage, which will hopefully take some pressure off the UK and Norway while the Soviet response has tied up a lot of forces that could be used elsewhere, which might be the single biggest bonus. Hopefully not too many local civilians suffer in the aftermath.
I'm a bit very dubious about the idea of an invasion of occupied Norway however, at least unless and until the US has cleared its homeland and been able to send a lot of air and naval forces, if not marines. Britain having been forced to fight pretty much alone after the collapse of NATO doesn't have the strength. The desertion of the former allies means its basically having to hang on and do as much damage to the Soviet forces attacking it and seeking to force their way into the Atlantic. And all this before a Soviet occupation of Sweden which seems increasingly likely.
Not at all surprised about Finland's reaction. Given how close they are to the Soviet heartland, even through the destruction of Leningrad complicates that they can't really do anything else as fighting would be pointless. Even if Sweden would offer full military support the pair could inflict some nasty losses but they would go down eventually and both the fighting and the aftermath would be very bad for the people of both nations. Especially since there would be no help from the continental neutrals.
This is the problem for Sweden now. Their very unlikely to get any support as if the neutrals are unwilling to fight for formal allies their unlikely to do so for a nation that wasn't a member and who's occupation would be less of a threat than if the UK went down, which would render their position pretty much defenseless. Even if the Soviets have also threatened Denmark as well their unlikely to change their mind and suddenly decide to go to war.
There is one possible option that Metterrand might try if he's willing to commit to it and also knows about the demand on Sweden. Unlike the other major powers of the neutrals France isn't threatened by invasion. Italy also lacks a border with the Soviets but are vulnerable to sea attack, although they don't know about the upcoming conflict between the Soviets and Libya. It can threaten that if further neutrals are attacked then France will join the conflict. This wouldn't help the Swedes much, or the Danes if attacked but would really help the other European allies as the French air and naval forces, so far untouched would be thrown into the fray. Also it would link up more effectively the European members of the alliance. France would be likely to see some attacks but would be largely buffered by Britain to the north and French air units forward based there could come in very useful. It means a net loss for the Soviets as as well as some heavy fighting before the Soviets go down the French forces would make exerting force into the Atlantic and the attack on Britain more difficult. Unless they up the ante by attacking the rest of the neutrals as they would have to go through W Germany to reach France. This would finally drive the rest of the neutrals off the fence and also any forces approaching French territory would risk French nuclear response.
Not saying they would do this, especially since if they were willing it would upset the rest of the neutral bloc but otherwise their likely to continue to be picked off, one way or another, one by one. Also I suspect that Vorotnikov would assume from past experience that they were bluffing and if they weren't he would probably go for a full scale invasion of western Europe. Which would be very bloody and might not work given the the neutrals, if they have any sense would have been not only moblising reserves but also building up ammo stockpiles and weapons in general. At least if they have any sense at all. Alternatively that might be a move that would trigger a coup against him but as you mention your not planning on a route where the Soviet empire survives the war. However its something that the French government should at least be thinking about. - Specifying France because its the only power big enough to make a real difference and not too vulnerable to Soviet attacks.
It's a different streategic situation; not only the situation between the EEC and the Soviets it's hardly civil (and i don't even consider the recent kidnapping) so many in the various capital will think that's only a question of time before is their turn and frankly losing another country to the soviet (even if transformed like Finland) will severely hurt the EEC economy and political stand, plus there is the high risk that the opening of the straits will be the prelude of the falling of the UK and this also mean game over. I also disagree regarding Denmark, she is one of the gang and unlike Ireland she has not declared war on her own, she will be attacked and not defending her will mean that the entire euro position is a bluff and they can give the key of the nations at Moscow
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Oct 27, 2018 13:57:43 GMT
James
Very good use of Tiger force and glad the UK had the sense to make only two raids. Its done some damage, which will hopefully take some pressure off the UK and Norway while the Soviet response has tied up a lot of forces that could be used elsewhere, which might be the single biggest bonus. Hopefully not too many local civilians suffer in the aftermath.
I'm a bit very dubious about the idea of an invasion of occupied Norway however, at least unless and until the US has cleared its homeland and been able to send a lot of air and naval forces, if not marines. Britain having been forced to fight pretty much alone after the collapse of NATO doesn't have the strength. The desertion of the former allies means its basically having to hang on and do as much damage to the Soviet forces attacking it and seeking to force their way into the Atlantic. And all this before a Soviet occupation of Sweden which seems increasingly likely.
Not at all surprised about Finland's reaction. Given how close they are to the Soviet heartland, even through the destruction of Leningrad complicates that they can't really do anything else as fighting would be pointless. Even if Sweden would offer full military support the pair could inflict some nasty losses but they would go down eventually and both the fighting and the aftermath would be very bad for the people of both nations. Especially since there would be no help from the continental neutrals.
This is the problem for Sweden now. Their very unlikely to get any support as if the neutrals are unwilling to fight for formal allies their unlikely to do so for a nation that wasn't a member and who's occupation would be less of a threat than if the UK went down, which would render their position pretty much defenseless. Even if the Soviets have also threatened Denmark as well their unlikely to change their mind and suddenly decide to go to war.
There is one possible option that Metterrand might try if he's willing to commit to it and also knows about the demand on Sweden. Unlike the other major powers of the neutrals France isn't threatened by invasion. Italy also lacks a border with the Soviets but are vulnerable to sea attack, although they don't know about the upcoming conflict between the Soviets and Libya. It can threaten that if further neutrals are attacked then France will join the conflict. This wouldn't help the Swedes much, or the Danes if attacked but would really help the other European allies as the French air and naval forces, so far untouched would be thrown into the fray. Also it would link up more effectively the European members of the alliance. France would be likely to see some attacks but would be largely buffered by Britain to the north and French air units forward based there could come in very useful. It means a net loss for the Soviets as as well as some heavy fighting before the Soviets go down the French forces would make exerting force into the Atlantic and the attack on Britain more difficult. Unless they up the ante by attacking the rest of the neutrals as they would have to go through W Germany to reach France. This would finally drive the rest of the neutrals off the fence and also any forces approaching French territory would risk French nuclear response.
Not saying they would do this, especially since if they were willing it would upset the rest of the neutral bloc but otherwise their likely to continue to be picked off, one way or another, one by one. Also I suspect that Vorotnikov would assume from past experience that they were bluffing and if they weren't he would probably go for a full scale invasion of western Europe. Which would be very bloody and might not work given the the neutrals, if they have any sense would have been not only moblising reserves but also building up ammo stockpiles and weapons in general. At least if they have any sense at all. Alternatively that might be a move that would trigger a coup against him but as you mention your not planning on a route where the Soviet empire survives the war. However its something that the French government should at least be thinking about. - Specifying France because its the only power big enough to make a real difference and not too vulnerable to Soviet attacks.
It's a different streategic situation; not only the situation between the EEC and the Soviets it's hardly civil (and i don't even consider the recent kidnapping) so many in the various capital will think that's only a question of time before is their turn and frankly losing another country to the soviet (even if transformed like Finland) will severely hurt the EEC economy and political stand, plus there is the high risk that the opening of the straits will be the prelude of the falling of the UK and this also mean game over. I also disagree regarding Denmark, she is one of the gang and unlike Ireland she has not declared war on her own, she will be attacked and not defending her will mean that the entire euro position is a bluff and they can give the key of the nations at Moscow
Well the bloc, which you keep calling the EEC despite the fact it isn't, have already deserted one set of allies that they had a written treaty commitment to fight alongside so why should they decide Denmark is any different?
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Oct 27, 2018 15:32:53 GMT
It's a different streategic situation; not only the situation between the EEC and the Soviets it's hardly civil (and i don't even consider the recent kidnapping) so many in the various capital will think that's only a question of time before is their turn and frankly losing another country to the soviet (even if transformed like Finland) will severely hurt the EEC economy and political stand, plus there is the high risk that the opening of the straits will be the prelude of the falling of the UK and this also mean game over. I also disagree regarding Denmark, she is one of the gang and unlike Ireland she has not declared war on her own, she will be attacked and not defending her will mean that the entire euro position is a bluff and they can give the key of the nations at Moscow
Well the bloc, which you keep calling the EEC despite the fact it isn't, have already deserted one set of allies that they had a written treaty commitment to fight alongside so why should they decide Denmark is any different?
I call the bloc the EEC because, well simply because there is no better name and the author had not come with another, neutral europe include also country that are not member of the EEC so it will not be correct, plus as said Denmark is different because deserting her mean that the bloc will fall apart and there is the risk of total encirclment; different strategic situation and at the moment different relations with the Soviet; basically Moscow had cornered the entire bloc in a position were they can't falter otherwise they will picked up one by one (plus they have been stayed together till now under Soviet pressure and not bulged, so why now?)
This also mean that the politbureau will be in situation to accept Sweden and Denmark refusal, accept the political/diplomatic defeat or launch an attack towards a very prepared Western Europe while at the same moment waging war in Asia and North America; as said neutral europe has been nice till lasted as i doubt that who's in command in Moscow will prefer back down to lose face.
Plus from a meta pow, the weak part of the story IMVHO as always been NATO break up and the rest of Western Europe to remain neutral, for this reason i had always insisted to add some more build up like the sheningahan that Trump had done in OTL (saying that euros don't pay enough and mooch the americans, being not really enthusiast toward art.5, being much more confrontional about commercial treaty and the european institution and saying how unfair their act his and how much damage they cause to the american workers), because it greatly compromise the trust between the two side of the Atlantic and open the door to Soviet manipulation effort and give some further reason for the great anger towards the USA, big enough to be in this situation.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Oct 27, 2018 18:53:01 GMT
Uh oh. If the Soviets are succesful, taking Zealand and Southern Sweden, the Baltic Fleet can cause a ton of issues for supplying Allied forces in Norway. Then again, I don't think that opening up yet another front is the best idea. They have right now: Mainland United States (Texas, Colorado, etc) Alaska Caribbean Atlantic (Iceland, Azores, etc) Air War over UK Norway China Korea Pacific And I'm sure there are others that I forgot. Besides, attacking the Danes/Swedes will not sit well in Paris or Brussels. On the other side of the Danish Straits, there are those ready to fight them. An attack on either Denmark or Sweden, or both, would see British and Norwegian intervention. If the war goes on for too long, they'd probably make the Antarctic or the Moon a battlefield too! In all seriousness, yes, this is already overextension to the max and it just isn't a good idea. An attack in the north will not go down well further south indeed. Oh well, european neutrality has been nice till lasted...as i doubt that the EEC will look the other way in this crisis, as it too near to home and frankly not only Sweden has probably been a close patner both economical and political in this tiring time but more or less considered an unofficial member; plus Bruxelles can't allow neither further encirclment or a neutral being menaced in this manner, plus there is the little fact of the URSS kindnapping a little child to blackmail the president of France. Palme option are three: - cave in and let the Soviet do what they want...and become little more than Finland - resist and enter the war - try a diplomatic hail mary and ask immediate accesion to the EEC, hoping that this will deter the soviet for a while. One must also consider that Palme was a true believer in Swedish neutrality and can be hard from him ask help even to the neutral EEC (more due to the fact that Bruxelles had a different concept of neutralty )...still desperate time, desperate solution. On Bruxelles side the least that i expect is the various ambassadors protesting soviet behaviour and start sending menace, plus a massive reinforcement of Denmark European neutrality is threatened elsewhere too. As you'll see below, the missing girl is still a factor too. Palme is certainly someone whose actions might not initially appear sensible to others when it acme to Swedish neutrality, I agree, but Swedish neutrality - like Swiss neutrality - is a complicated thing and its intricacies important to them. I'm not sure where exactly I will go with Sweden but they are on the path towards war. Whether that will be alongside Western Europe, with the Allies or on their own I am yet to decide. I think the Swedish police, intelligence and special forces will be on standby to nip as many Spetsnaz attacks in bud ASAP. They'll be coming because it's standard Soviet operating procedures. Target vocal opponents through smears, blackmail, assassination attempts, bombings. The moment they get a "No" from the Swedes, Chemical attacks and a ground invasion. Most Swedish tanks will either be Centurion based, 50's designs or the rather effective STRV-103 - the S tank. It's a low profile ambush specialist. Between that and the man portable anti tank missiles the Swedes have, any ground invasion is likely to be thrown back hard. At that point the Soviets have two choices: accept it and sell the action as "a suitable punishment for the Swedes who have now learned their lesson", (to be followed up with smaller naval and commando attacks), or they go Nuclear, and we say goodbye to Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. The Swedes are in a tough place and likely to have to chose how much they're prepared to suffer. That's how they have done it to Norway and the Swedes know about that plus have received all sorts of other intelligence. Meeting that challenge is still a big ask for anyone though. Fighting on Sweden's border will favour the Swedes in winter and especially if the Soviets can't get a steamroller going. I think they'd hold. Sweden's geography all down the Baltic makes it open to airborne/amphibious attacks though so maybe it might go that way: I have yet to decide if or how it will all happen. No sensible person choses war but what Moscow wants is just unacceptable. James
Very good use of Tiger force and glad the UK had the sense to make only two raids. Its done some damage, which will hopefully take some pressure off the UK and Norway while the Soviet response has tied up a lot of forces that could be used elsewhere, which might be the single biggest bonus. Hopefully not too many local civilians suffer in the aftermath.
I'm a bit very dubious about the idea of an invasion of occupied Norway however, at least unless and until the US has cleared its homeland and been able to send a lot of air and naval forces, if not marines. Britain having been forced to fight pretty much alone after the collapse of NATO doesn't have the strength. The desertion of the former allies means its basically having to hang on and do as much damage to the Soviet forces attacking it and seeking to force their way into the Atlantic. And all this before a Soviet occupation of Sweden which seems increasingly likely.
Not at all surprised about Finland's reaction. Given how close they are to the Soviet heartland, even through the destruction of Leningrad complicates that they can't really do anything else as fighting would be pointless. Even if Sweden would offer full military support the pair could inflict some nasty losses but they would go down eventually and both the fighting and the aftermath would be very bad for the people of both nations. Especially since there would be no help from the continental neutrals.
This is the problem for Sweden now. Their very unlikely to get any support as if the neutrals are unwilling to fight for formal allies their unlikely to do so for a nation that wasn't a member and who's occupation would be less of a threat than if the UK went down, which would render their position pretty much defenseless. Even if the Soviets have also threatened Denmark as well their unlikely to change their mind and suddenly decide to go to war.
There is one possible option that Metterrand might try if he's willing to commit to it and also knows about the demand on Sweden. Unlike the other major powers of the neutrals France isn't threatened by invasion. Italy also lacks a border with the Soviets but are vulnerable to sea attack, although they don't know about the upcoming conflict between the Soviets and Libya. It can threaten that if further neutrals are attacked then France will join the conflict. This wouldn't help the Swedes much, or the Danes if attacked but would really help the other European allies as the French air and naval forces, so far untouched would be thrown into the fray. Also it would link up more effectively the European members of the alliance. France would be likely to see some attacks but would be largely buffered by Britain to the north and French air units forward based there could come in very useful. It means a net loss for the Soviets as as well as some heavy fighting before the Soviets go down the French forces would make exerting force into the Atlantic and the attack on Britain more difficult. Unless they up the ante by attacking the rest of the neutrals as they would have to go through W Germany to reach France. This would finally drive the rest of the neutrals off the fence and also any forces approaching French territory would risk French nuclear response.
Not saying they would do this, especially since if they were willing it would upset the rest of the neutral bloc but otherwise their likely to continue to be picked off, one way or another, one by one. Also I suspect that Vorotnikov would assume from past experience that they were bluffing and if they weren't he would probably go for a full scale invasion of western Europe. Which would be very bloody and might not work given the the neutrals, if they have any sense would have been not only moblising reserves but also building up ammo stockpiles and weapons in general. At least if they have any sense at all. Alternatively that might be a move that would trigger a coup against him but as you mention your not planning on a route where the Soviet empire survives the war. However its something that the French government should at least be thinking about. - Specifying France because its the only power big enough to make a real difference and not too vulnerable to Soviet attacks.
I've been thinking for a while about where to use the ship. Soviet warships heading off elsewhere gave an opening though there is still an air threat - and a land-based missile one - to consider. Hunting it for propaganda value will tie up the Soviets for ages, which wasn't a British intent but they won't complain. A British counter-invasion to the north of where they hold would be an opposed landing. It would cause many casualties. It is one being considered in London as another one of their many schemes. You are correct in the very dubious wisdom of doing that. The Finns got into something which just spiralled out of control. Sweden fears the same for themselves. Western Europe isn't someone whom Sweden will go running to ahead of any attack. Once at war, all bets on that are off. France would be the best bet ahead of anyone else from Western Europe although they have that huge West Germany commitment. The whole wider European issue is now becoming important when looking at the Swedish situation. There has been mobilisation, movement of troops, internal security measures and so on. Grumbles over the wisdom of this remain and so does internal / extrenal political division. Traitors are still about too.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Oct 27, 2018 18:55:33 GMT
(273)
December 1984: Western Europe
The news that the Soviets had kidnapped President Mitterrand’s secret daughter had been passed to governments and intelligence organisations across the Continent. Further increases around the security of VIPs and their families, even more than what already had occurred over the previous few months, took place through many countries. There had been no contact made from the KGB kidnappers and thus there was always the very slim outside chance that the snatching of the Pingeot girl had been the work of someone else, but that was very unlikely. Everyone knew how the KGB had taken family members of several politicians in the United States hostage and also killed British royals – Princess Diana and her newborn baby – in their pursuit of geo-political aims. Mitterrand’s bitter dispute with the Soviet Union had driven them to take his child and would clearly try to use her safe return as an attempt to change France’s policy when it came to refusing Soviet overtures. The French public knew nothing of this though. Mitterrand wasn’t about to tell his people about his lovechild nor any of his other secrets. Maybe he could have, come clean with his people, but he wasn’t that type of man. Those who needed to know did. Mitterrand and the French government waited for word to come from those who had kidnapped his daughter, ready to react to their demands. Situations were run through when it came to hypothetical KGB demands for her safety and how each of those would be responded to. A great deal of work was done by the DGSE on this all the while the same organisation conducted a major covert search for her or trace of those who had taken the child. This occurred across France and outside of the country too where their inquires led them along the route she had been taken. The life of the friend of Mitterrand’s mistress, the woman who’d helped take the girl and then been killed, was taken apart by investigators. All those at the secluded country house – security and staff – were questioned intensely. Over in Switzerland, following a trail led France’s intelligence operatives to locate an abandoned building in the northeast of the country, about a dozen miles from Zurich and not that far from Lake Constance. Permission was sought and gained from the Swiss to strike there where French special forces were allowed to act on Swiss territory. This had taken a great deal of effort to allow to occur as the Swiss were more than a little apprehensive to see this done, but Mitterrand’s personal intervention with the Swiss Government plus the ties between the DGSE and the Swiss intelligence community saw it allowed to take place. The time delay was frustrating for all those involved but the politics mattered on this. Swiss special forces attached a few officers as liaison though the French commandos from a select detachment of 1 RPIMa undertook the mission in reality.
A shootout occurred with armed men inside the building who fought back well even when hit with an assault like they were. Two Frenchmen would end up dead and another three badly-hurt. Six men inside the building, all with false identification, were found with four killed straight away and one died despite intensive medical treatment. The sixth man was knocked unconscious in the firefight and looked dead to everyone at first with a bloody headwound. Once it was discovered he was not – when a 1 RPIMa soldier was about to give him the ‘double-tap’ to finish him off just-for-sure, he noticed that despite the blood he was still breathing –, the injured man was at once removed for questioning. A Swiss officer went with him as he was flown first by helicopter to a Swiss military base by the French military and the DGSE before that same Swiss officer then went to France with him too. At all times, he legally remained in Swiss custody though that was just a political fudge: his interrogation would all be done by the French. In that building, there was much evidence gained that the men here had been intimately involved in the kidnapping across in France. The girl had been here too. She was searched for in case she was hidden but all evidence pointed to her having be brought here and then moved onwards. She hadn’t been removed in that delay when Bern and Paris were talking either, but before then. The trail went cold. It would appear that she might have been taken to West Germany, maybe Austria, by going across Lake Constance rather than over land borders yet that was only speculation. She could still be in Switzerland. She could even be dead and buried somewhere. That prisoner would be ‘asked’. That he was as the DGSE forced him to talk. He had been on the receiving end of the girl’s arrival in Switzerland and took her into custody alongside others with him who were now dead, not the snatch team who’d done the hand-off and departed. Afterwards, a third team had taken her onwards. He didn’t know where that was, despite all of the questioning. He was forced to give much more information yet he knew little on the fate of the missing child. French intelligence activity moved to West Germany to search for her there afterwards but where the now ten years-old (she’d had her birthday while held hostage) Mazarine Marie Pingeot was remained still unknown.
Confirmed KGB involvement in the kidnapping led Mitterrand to take direct action. He’d held back but once the prisoner was speaking – and he had a lot to say about many other things too –, then it was time to act. In Salzburg, a Soviet trade attaché who the French knew was the KGB rezidentura for their activities in the consulate in Austria was snatched off the street and taken for interrogation too with no cooperation done with the Austrian authorities. In Niger and Tanzania, African nations on both sides of the continent, KGB officers in Niamey and Dar es Salaam who the DGSE had been monitoring for their activities in these neutral nations were gunned down by local criminals in the pay of France. At Dubrovnik on the Yugoslavian coast, a ship being used by the KGB which had been active in the Med. for intelligence-gathering missions in the electronic field was tied alongside the harbour there. It was blown up by persons unknown, killing more than twenty people which included Yugoslavians. The Salzburg kidnapping saw several important KGB people travel there from Vienna in a vehicle with diplomatic plates. Before it reached Salzburg, someone took a shot at it from distance and the driver was killed by that sniper. The vehicle crashed, killing another person inside and injuring two more of them gravely. An attempt to ambush a reaction team heading to the Dubrovnik bombing didn’t work out due to Yugoslavian internal security measures (reacting better than the Austrians could) being rather tight.
France was doing what the Soviets had been doing: striking out with lethal intent in actions done with plausible deniability across neutral nations. The trade attaché in Salzburg was an accredited diplomat, not someone who could have been openly touched without it all becoming a bigger deal than it already was. He was taken rather than killed because of the identified links that there were with the Pingeot kidnapping which came from DGSE investigations in neighbouring Bavaria to look for her. The others were all targets of opportunity. What the French did was to send unspoken messages to the KGB rather than the whole Soviet Union. Such people in Africa and that ship using a Yugoslavian identity were bit part players in a big worldwide conflict yet France hit them because their actions in doing what they did would negatively affect that for the KGB. The kidnappers of Mitterrand’s child were still being sought while at the same time the organisation behind that was being hit hard. More French actions were in the works, all to be done while the missing child was out there.
West Germany continued to be full of troops from the Bundeswehr and neighbouring countries who were spread across the nation in defensive positions. NATO was officially still an active organisation which hadn’t been legally wound up though in reality it was as dead as a dodo. Direct government-to-government relations wouldn’t do long-term if the country was going to be continued to be defended against what was perceived as a Soviet threat to invade the country where it retained its huge force on the other side of the Iron Curtain despite its foreign wars elsewhere. There needed to be a new NATO.
A new NATO wasn’t wanted by many though. The governments of France, West Germany and Italy were all keen on an organised mutual defence organisation but their Western European partners in Denmark and the Low Countries weren’t keen on that. Left unsaid was the fact that the allegations by the Americans and other former NATO allies that Western Europe had ‘bailed’ on them back in September rang true. Why sign up to another agreement and put all the necessary commitment to it if the same countries who were involved the first time around might once again choose at the last minute not to honour obligations? The form of what kind of a new NATO would take concerned others. If it would just be the combined defence of West Germany against a Soviet attack – recognised in all quarters as of supreme importance –, then that would be fine. But if it meant doing other things, then no. The Dutch were already unhappy at the pressure France applied to them earlier in the war which they were neutral in to allow for British forces, troops of a nation at war, to pass through their country on the way home. They saw their neutrality as having being violated and their people endangered at the behest of foreign powers: this made them suspicious of a French-led military alliance. The Danes were concerned with their own joint cooperation with Sweden over the Baltic Exits and if a new NATO didn’t support that, then they wanted no part of it. Belgium expressed concern at any troop commitment. Like Denmark and the Netherlands, Belgium had a major internal security operation ongoing and a partial mobilisation. This was costing them dear and a new NATO for anything more than the defence of West Germany, which they were committed to, would mean more mobilisation and more expenditure. The three bigger countries were all mobilised, costing them much, but swallowing that where they pushed for the smaller nations to follow their lead. However, while in France and Italy, the political will was there with that mobilisation, in West Germany there were wobbles in the grand coalition of the SPD, CDU and FDP about that going on forever.
Soviet actions elsewhere forced progress on a new NATO though. There was the news which came from Sweden and then what was going on down in the Aegean too as the Greek-Turkish War saw a third force enter the play. The Soviets might have been fighting the Americans, the British, the Chinese and whomever else they wanted to as they sought to control the world, but they were still threatening the edges of Western Europe too. Negations on a defensive alliance would take place next year. Before then, work was done on a reorganised command structure with military forces deployed in West Germany to better serve the mission there ahead of that. Troops were moved about and staffs set up. This was done under French military supervision. To some, these changes which commenced in late December looked less defensive everyday and more offensive-minded instead. That wasn’t what it was all supposed to be about and the French dismissed such a notion. One of the high-ranking West German generals who looked at this and came to the same conclusion didn’t make a complaint to his government. He spoke to his KGB contact instead and provided evidence of what he saw as ‘a threat to European peace’. His handler nodded with sympathy, feigning understanding of his agent’s moral plight just as a good agent handler should. That evidence – top secret documents – was fast on its way to Moscow.
|
|
|
Post by redrobin65 on Oct 27, 2018 19:09:44 GMT
Make this happen! Just kidding, but I'd love to see what Moscow does now.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Oct 27, 2018 19:11:07 GMT
Well the bloc, which you keep calling the EEC despite the fact it isn't, have already deserted one set of allies that they had a written treaty commitment to fight alongside so why should they decide Denmark is any different?
I call the bloc the EEC because, well simply because there is no better name and the author had not come with another, neutral europe include also country that are not member of the EEC so it will not be correct, plus as said Denmark is different because deserting her mean that the bloc will fall apart and there is the risk of total encirclment; different strategic situation and at the moment different relations with the Soviet; basically Moscow had cornered the entire bloc in a position were they can't falter otherwise they will picked up one by one (plus they have been stayed together till now under Soviet pressure and not bulged, so why now?)
This also mean that the politbureau will be in situation to accept Sweden and Denmark refusal, accept the political/diplomatic defeat or launch an attack towards a very prepared Western Europe while at the same moment waging war in Asia and North America; as said neutral europe has been nice till lasted as i doubt that who's in command in Moscow will prefer back down to lose face.
Plus from a meta pow, the weak part of the story IMVHO as always been NATO break up and the rest of Western Europe to remain neutral, for this reason i had always insisted to add some more build up like the sheningahan that Trump had done in OTL (saying that euros don't pay enough and mooch the americans, being not really enthusiast toward art.5, being much more confrontional about commercial treaty and the european institution and saying how unfair their act his and how much damage they cause to the american workers), because it greatly compromise the trust between the two side of the Atlantic and open the door to Soviet manipulation effort and give some further reason for the great anger towards the USA, big enough to be in this situation.
Except that of course it excludes two 1984 EEC powers who are in fighting in the alliance so its no more accurate than the neutral bloc. Less so as it is a bloc who are 'currently' neutral which accurately describes them. Currently because that might possibly change if Sweden and/or Denmark.
Technically at the moment its unclear whether Denmark has been similarly threatened. The Soviets want access to the N Sea from either or preferably both powers but its only been mentioned so far that Sweden has been threatened. Also since the bloc has already deserted other allies when they were attacked in reality it could well do so again. France might be prepared to fight in the event of an attack on Denmark, or possibly even on Sweden but would W Germany as it would automatically be at the forefront of the new conflict?
The collapse of NATO under those circumstances is probably a weak point, even with Kennedy's errors, but not as weak as the idea that the Soviets could wage a successful war in N America despite overwhelming US [and allied] naval power to blockade any reinforcements. Or even that they could think they would be able to. In the story James has been quite favourable to the Soviets at sea to enable the current set of reinforcements to get as far as it has, with a quite effective initial strike and then some very costly overconfident pushes, especially into the Norwegian sea. Even so the Soviet attack is running out of steam, even apart from the quagmire in China. This isn't a complaint about James's handling of it but something that was necessary for a story as wild as the plot of the Red Dawn film to even vaguely occur.
|
|