Dan
Warrant Officer
Posts: 258 
Likes: 185
|
Post by Dan on Nov 13, 2018 13:54:38 GMT
However I do very disagree With that Britain won't send its army to fight on the German front unless necassery because it Will show that they are properly fighting the Soviets and avenging all the bombing and missile attacks. It depends how many troops they send to Canada. it's a tough call - fighting through West then East Germany is what these troops have been training for since 1945, yet Canada is part of the Commonwealth and blood is thicker than water so to speak. Decisions, decisions. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Nov 13, 2018 14:44:22 GMT
Sorry missed this in my pass through the thread last night. I think their pretty certain to become co-belligerences against the Soviets but not sure of any formal alliance. For one thing that would raise questions of control of respective forces and I suspect neither side would be that willing to give up real say to the other. I can't see the US being willing to put any units under EDA control and the European NATO members are only going to do that in extremist while I suspect the EDA would be unwilling to give up any power at all over its forces. That's another reason why, unless it became a necessity that it would be unlikely Britain would send forces to the German front.
For another thing its clear that the EDA is still seeking to avoid fighting the Soviets, although I think they will fail there. Having seen the Soviets defeated in both naval offensives, at least in the short term, they may be thinking a rational Soviet leadership will avoid adding them to their list of opponents and just continue fighting the allies and the Chinese. Especially since war with the EDA would lose what little gains the Soviet fleets have managed as what's left would be isolated in the Med and the Baltic straits would be closed again. Which suggests they haven't been paying attention given what Moscow has been doing. However they did nothing militarily to oppose either Soviet thrust, relying on NATO to defeat the Soviet navies and only intervening in Sweden when the Soviets limited their offensive which meant their avoided a military clash so far.
This latter might change if/when their actually at war but the tone of the EDA actions is very much they wish to keep their distance from the alliance.
I kind of disagree With this, I think Mitterand wants war but the rest of the EDA isn't all that up to it. That doesn't mean they won't feel emboldenent if the Soviets decide to retreat from Sweden (because at this point their situation there is rapidly becoming unholdable) it just means that currently they are hoping for the best but expecting the worst. However I do very disagree With that Britain won't send its army to fight on the German front unless necassery because it Will show that they are properly fighting the Soviets and avenging all the bombing and missile attacks.
Britain and its allies have been properly fighting the Soviets for several months now and paying a bloody bill for it, while the bloc/EDA were ducking out of things. If Britain were to adopt the EDA stance they will only send forces to any fighting in central Europe if its thought that without them the EDA position would collapse. That's a simple statement of fact. Britain might decide it ought to aid the EDA anyway but there's no legal, moral or practical reason for it to do so.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Nov 13, 2018 14:52:20 GMT
However I do very disagree With that Britain won't send its army to fight on the German front unless necassery because it Will show that they are properly fighting the Soviets and avenging all the bombing and missile attacks. It depends how many troops they send to Canada. it's a tough call - fighting through West then East Germany is what these troops have been training for since 1945, yet Canada is part of the Commonwealth and blood is thicker than water so to speak. Decisions, decisions.
I doubt that substantial British forces would be sent to N America as the war there is likely to be decided before they could arrive, plus with the heavy losses the allied fleets have been suffering it might be difficult ensuring their safe passage. Also there will be some concern about the situation in Europe until its clear that the EDA can hold its own. However there are practical possibilities such as boosting the defence of Norway, possibly helping liberate Iceland and also when the opportunity becomes available helping liberate Sweden. All of those would boost British interests.
Also in the longer term while I would prefer not getting bogged down in central America and hopefully most of the Cuban empire can be liberated by US attacks on Cuba itself, possibly just by air attack there is the question of liberating and securing Belize, although given the references to genocide there that could be very messy.
As I said in reply to Eurowatch Britain has no legal or moral reason to support the EDA in a fight in Germany but should consider it if it looks like the Soviets might break through. However otherwise Britain has already paid a heavy price for the war and would best serve its interest by helping its allies and otherwise preserving its resources for the post-war world and reconstruction.
|
|
|
|
Post by eurowatch on Nov 13, 2018 15:08:10 GMT
However I do very disagree With that Britain won't send its army to fight on the German front unless necassery because it Will show that they are properly fighting the Soviets and avenging all the bombing and missile attacks. It depends how many troops they send to Canada. it's a tough call - fighting through West then East Germany is what these troops have been training for since 1945, yet Canada is part of the Commonwealth and blood is thicker than water so to speak. Decisions, decisions. It has been some time since I read the relevant Chapter but wasn't the war in Canada and Alaska pretty much won With the Soviet forces there isolated and defeated? However I agree With Stevep that sending large forces to North America would not be safe or practical under the current conditions. |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Nov 13, 2018 17:00:28 GMT
So, I'm finally caught up again! It took a while, but it was amazing to get to read so much of the story without waiting between updates. The writing really is amazing. And I'm lucky enough to catch up right at the moment that the Euros are starting to act more overtly.
The war seems to be turning more and more against the Soviets. It may seem to be a little bit insane of them to make more and more enemies, but without that mindset, I don't see them actually starting an invasion of the USA in the first place, let alone one accompanied by nuclear strikes. That takes a certain amount of self-deception.
|
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Nov 13, 2018 17:44:37 GMT
Oh right, decision time for the Kremlin, the people there must decide if attaking a prepared enemy with basic the last big reserve pool of troops and equipment is a worth risk; as James said before, sure they can reach the Rhine but with horrible loss and after that there were little that they can do...and the war in China and North America seem not really at an end.
Plus there is the 'problem' of the other nations of the Warswaw Pact, while the East German will be reliable, the rest (and more than anyone the Polish) will have a reliability much less assured and using them as shocktrooper to soften the EDA defense can cause some nasty consequences in the rear.
So, while back down can cause a pretty hit to the politbureau ego and a public lose of face by the soviet, seem that at this stage is the most logical option...as it's imply that once NA and China are settleted the Maastrich bloc and the Soviet will have some words; naturally fear of losing power over the rest of the block and to face an open humiliation at the international stage can override all other argument.
One must also take in consideration what move the Italian and French navy are going to do in the Med, taking Malta? IRC (but i can easily be wrong), is just under Lybian 'protection' and so not directly aligned/annexed to the URSS/Communist Bloc...so a military operation there that try to stay clear of the soviet military unit will not sparkle another crisis or even a war (at least in theory)
For the UK oil problem, well the North Sea Drill station are now in the bottom of the sea as the Soviet destroy them almost immediately, regarding the food, maybe between calling the men to the armed forces, distribution system wrecked, worldwide commerce almost at standill, there is some shortage...but from what i see, it's more a psycological thing than real, there is rationing, there are reserve, not real famine; it's more a perception plus the general frustration to be continually hit without any possibility to fight back.
Regarding the EDA, while French-led, it cannot be French dominated due to France not being so overwhelimg more strong of nation like Italy or West Germany and that patner are needed to increase French capacity due to her not having the same resources of the two superpowers, so Paris is more a first among (almost) equal that particulary aggressive...and by at least the formation of the European Coal and Steel Association France interest and general Western Europe interest are considered the same (enphasis in general and collective).
a question:
There are two other neutrals in Europe aka Austria and Jugoslavia; the first is behold by the declaration of Austrian neutrality to not take part in military alliance, but if Sweden has been attacked, in Wien there will be a legitimate fear that they will be the next target in case of warfare in Europe...so while there is a risk in going to cozy or even join EDA (plus a breach of the Treaty), can be worth the risk and a lot has happen to make this kind of move more possible.
Jugoslavia will be more prone to stay alone, expecially if relations with the URSS are somewhat better, nevertheless i expect them to have mobilized and the army ready for wage guerrila warfare in case of invasion; it's probable that they will be asked to let troops pass from Hungary to attack Austria and Italy...making them a target for the EDA nation; well decision time even for them (with or against the URSS?)
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Nov 13, 2018 20:58:30 GMT
I'm hoping the Europeans see sense and join the Allies; even if they don't, however, it's good to see the French shipping supplies over to the UK. Un fortunately, that won't occur. Mitterrand is going to do a Sinatra. The supplies are welcome indeed. Much of that is a big FU to Moscow though. I am somewhat surprised that the internal situation of the UK seems to be that bad. Sure, fewer imports coming in won't help the economy but the UK should be ok in key areas such as energy. Firstly, the North Sea is at peak production at that time, secondly the coal mines are still there and a smart government would do whatever it takes to end the Miners strike there and then! Petrol rationing will be useful but the rations are likely to be fairly large even with a goal of reducing civilian consumption by 50% and private motoring will likely bear the brunt of the cuts. Food wise the UK was 78% self-sufficient in food in 1984 and 95% self-sufficient for indigenous food types. I got that data from Defra, the stats are available webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http:/www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/defra-stats-foodfarm-food-trade-selfsuff-120904.xls. Therefore, large scale rationning is unlikely to occur, especially of bread and other staples. Bananas and fruits will become more expensive, chocolate will also become dearer. Money wise, the UK is actually less indebted in 1984 than now. The compulsory savings suggested but not adopted by Keynes in WW2 may make a reappearance here if the government is pragmatic and willing to think outside of the box. The war will be costly for sure, but then the UK may be in a good position post-war toi repay its debts fast. Why? The Soviet, Mexican Gulf and some Middle Eastern oilfields will be out of action so the North Sea may reap the benefits ... I can imagine that the country will be bitterly divided internally though and riots are not unlikely. You make some very good points. I may have gone too far to push towards a semi-dystopia. However, on the matter of food it has always been a matter of enough is not enough for many people who want more. It is greed. I wasn't aware of those high numbers of domestic production though I still think there would be an issue with food due to a rush to rationing where stocks are held high (the barrier stocks issue ready for nuclear attacks) and the admin issues plus criminality. Still, you are correct overall and I've gone wrong there. Oil: the North Sea platforms got it early on, British and Norwegian ones. Peterhead and Aberdeen got hit too. The rest of the infrastructure has been shut down. The area is a war zone otherwise you're right and the UK would be fine. Long-term an oil boom is very possible but not now. Coal is being used much, yes. There was no issue with shutting mines leading to a late 84 strike as OTL.
I said that they didn't have much chance to stop a full scale Soviet invasion, which is what I was initially assuming. What they might have done was declare war in support of Sweden and then become involved in clashes with the Soviet Baltic fleet as it sought to break out, as that was being suggested as the prime reason for their concern if it successfully established itself in the North Sea. They did neither and haven't responded to the Soviet Black Sea fleet pushing for the Gibraltar straits, at least not on time to contest that. [Still to read any later posts]. I made that comment because it was suggested that the Soviet pressure on then attack on Sweden was a major trigger but if so its a bloody slow firing gun. 
True if/when they join the conflict neutral bloc would no longer be accurate and you would note I've just been using bloc for a while. As you know EEC is definitely factually inaccurate, both because the bloc excludes several two members already at was and because the EEC has no military identity and organisation.
We are using the EDA or even Maastricht Bloc now. The EEC still remains not part of the story. .....Battle of the Fulda Gap, going eastwards this time? That would be a blast! The French - they are there where the US V Corps was - would hit unfriendly terrain to the east of there. Better access east would be further north: through Magdeburg and over the Elbe towards Berlin.
Would agree about the coal although a lot of the oil-rigs have probably been hit and possibly also a lot of attacks on coal power stations and parts of the distribution system perhaps?
However agree on your other points. A lot of the privatisations hadn't happened yet so it would be easier to run a war-time economy. Likely to be a lot of corruption, we're talking about Thatcherism here, but also a strong desire to clamp down on it, especially with a national government having been formed. Also given how high many living standards are compared to much of the world at the time there is a fair amount of fat to cut, especially compared to 1940 say. Plus there would still be a lot of people with experience of either WWII or the post-war scarcity to help keep demands reasonable. Furthermore since Britain has been the subject of a clear attack and has no practical hope of a realistic separate peace I don't think there would be many people thinking an anti-war movement has much point. More likely as with the Blitz there would be a desire for revenge, although at this point little chance of really seeing any. Imports from outside W Europe could have been hit pretty heavily as the RN is of course a lot smaller than in WWII and have been heavily engaged in seeking to defend Britain itself and supporting Norway.
The difficult point to measure is that Britain has been fighting largely alone, along with Spain, Portugal, Norway and Ireland, which has led to the European allies being largely exposed and with the Americans distracted by their own invasion and the Soviet capture of Iceland there have been attacks from all fronts while the desertion of most of the European allies will have been a big hit to morale. From James's last post some stuff have come from Europe and it sounds like as aid rather than them expecting payment for it later but given the bloc's desire to stay out of the shooting war how much is that known to the public. As such there's going to be a measure of depression about this and distrust of the bloc members, given how much Britain has paid as a result. [Similarly feelings no doubt in the other European NATO members and Spain but possibly more so in Britain because it had committed substantial forces to the 'allies' that deserted it.]
This might be affected when news of the new EDA is made public, although the fact that its still not formally committed to opposing the Soviets will reduce that feeling a lot as NATO is still left to do all the fighting unless and until the Soviets actually engage the EDA militarily, which is probably going to be soon.
The North Sea oil rigs got a whalloping. Fixed, known points. I see things in the UK as being worse though I admit I might have gone a bit far. Still, war-weariness rather than any desire for surrender is behind the anti-war movement... and it isn't even that big. The EDA will end up at war in the end but how the public sees that in the end might not be great: late to the party, picking your fights at a good time etc.
Very much doubt it. The EDA is making clear it will give the Soviets the 1st strike so forces would be heading westwards 1st. Depending on what source they will either be stopped about on the Rhine or go further so its unlikely unless there's a sudden Soviet collapse that their forces or allied ones will be pushing eastwards in the near future. Especially if the Soviets were to see sense and stop pushing in China and start pull some of those forces heading fro China back to fight in western Europe. However hope they can hold, especially short of France as that could lead to a nuclear exchange.
Ah, don't rule that out because I might just go that way. James
Well the bloc have made a kind of move. It does give the Soviets the choice of whether to strike - which they almost certainly will unless there's a coup against Vorotnikov and would lead to heavy fighting in W Germany and Denmark at least. Possibly more if the Soviets actually have the sense to establish defensive positions in China and pull back some of the forces they have heading east currently. In that case the EDA may even need British help although since their in a different alliance issues of C&C would have to be sorted out. Ideally they won't and Britain can use the pause to rebuild and preferably help Norway and liberate Iceland which would do a huge amount to improve Britain's security.
Its good that at least some of what's come from the continent has been as aid rather than with expectation of payment afterwards but as I said replying to dunois I'm not sure how public that's been.
Hopefully the worst is over now for the allies although the EDA is likely to have some bitter fighting ahead. If the US can defeat the final Soviet push in N America things could fall apart for the enemy there, although the yanks are going to take some nasty losses with those poorly trained recruits. Then they can help out with the securing of the N Atlantic and probably start to bash Cuba as the easiest way of restoring independence for the occupied parts of the Caribbean. They may be reluctant to help out the EDA too directly however depending on the circumstances.
Steve
Putting troops into Sweden means quite a lot considering the Soviets are fighting there. It is a stepping stone to war really. Norway is an issue Britain needs to deal with and soon.Iceland, even the Azores, are just too much for them considering where they are and who is there. Fighting in the US, with its new army, is coming up soon and your fears will be shown to be correct. The US still has naval forces for the Atlantic but yes, they remain focused at home. Working with Western Europe directly will not go down well in the US and probably won't be done officially. That last update got me thinking: with all the nukes and nuke reactors destroyed/detonated, the environment must have taken a beating. Nuclear strikes in the US, USSR, Mexico and China. Nuclear minesweeping in the Baltic. Nuclear powered carriers, battlecruisers, cruisers, and submarines sunk. So...will people go hunting for six eyed fish in the late '90s? Hopefully not (never say never) but there will probably be contaminated parts of the ocean, and don't forget fallout from tactical and strategic nukes on land. Its very bad in places though less so in others. The many hits on DC and Leningrad plus the big hits on US and Soviet missile fields are terrible incidents. The ocean isn't so bad as the water will dilute a lot but where it is concentrated, those places will be terribly dangerous. I kind of disagree With this, I think Mitterand wants war but the rest of the EDA isn't all that up to it. That doesn't mean they won't feel emboldenent if the Soviets decide to retreat from Sweden (because at this point their situation there is rapidly becoming unholdable) it just means that currently they are hoping for the best but expecting the worst. However I do very disagree With that Britain won't send its army to fight on the German front unless necassery because it Will show that they are properly fighting the Soviets and avenging all the bombing and missile attacks. Correct on both points. This matches my thinking perfectly on each. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Nov 13, 2018 20:58:47 GMT
However I do very disagree With that Britain won't send its army to fight on the German front unless necassery because it Will show that they are properly fighting the Soviets and avenging all the bombing and missile attacks. It depends how many troops they send to Canada. it's a tough call - fighting through West then East Germany is what these troops have been training for since 1945, yet Canada is part of the Commonwealth and blood is thicker than water so to speak. Decisions, decisions. What Eurowatch says below/page before this one is accurate on this. The fight in Canada is won. We have seen British 'research' teams in the US looking at deployment sites but it is very unlikely with the last Atlantic naval clashes: the Soviets still have aircraft and subs even without surface ships. However, there are British troops in Colorado alongside the Canadians. They have fought with them already and will continue to do so. There will be the Commonwealth partnership in action, just on a small - if bloody - scale. Going into East Germany would be something that the British Army has spent months getting ready to do, even if their startlines are Rotterdam, Antwerp and Calais rather than the North German Plain. It has been some time since I read the relevant Chapter but wasn't the war in Canada and Alaska pretty much won With the Soviet forces there isolated and defeated? However I agree With Stevep that sending large forces to North America would not be safe or practical under the current conditions. Yep, that happened. There is a cut-off and isolated Soviet force only at the bottom of Alaskan Panhandle: Juneau and south to the Canadian frontier. It is contained and the Pacific is shut to any resupply/reinforcement. If not captured, those men there will starve to death. UK/Canadian/US forces (American air power; Commonwealth troops) did that well. So, I'm finally caught up again! It took a while, but it was amazing to get to read so much of the story without waiting between updates. The writing really is amazing. And I'm lucky enough to catch up right at the moment that the Euros are starting to act more overtly. The war seems to be turning more and more against the Soviets. It may seem to be a little bit insane of them to make more and more enemies, but without that mindset, I don't see them actually starting an invasion of the USA in the first place, let alone one accompanied by nuclear strikes. That takes a certain amount of self-deception. Thank you. A story can be enjoyed well if read like that, I know. With Western Europe, them joining in was always my intention though I wasn't sure how (still need specifics) but they were coming in. Oh, the Soviets are on the back foot now. They keep on collecting enemies and getting into more wars. In Moscow, they still believe they can win though. Oh right, decision time for the Kremlin, the people there must decide if attaking a prepared enemy with basic the last big reserve pool of troops and equipment is a worth risk; as James said before, sure they can reach the Rhine but with horrible loss and after that there were little that they can do...and the war in China and North America seem not really at an end. Plus there is the 'problem' of the other nations of the Warswaw Pact, while the East German will be reliable, the rest (and more than anyone the Polish) will have a reliability much less assured and using them as shocktrooper to soften the EDA defense can cause some nasty consequences in the rear. So, while back down can cause a pretty hit to the politbureau ego and a public lose of face by the soviet, seem that at this stage is the most logical option...as it's imply that once NA and China are settleted the Maastrich bloc and the Soviet will have some words; naturally fear of losing power over the rest of the block and to face an open humiliation at the international stage can override all other argument. One must also take in consideration what move the Italian and French navy are going to do in the Med, taking Malta? IRC (but i can easily be wrong), is just under Lybian 'protection' and so not directly aligned/annexed to the URSS/Communist Bloc...so a military operation there that try to stay clear of the soviet military unit will not sparkle another crisis or even a war (at least in theory) For the UK oil problem, well the North Sea Drill station are now in the bottom of the sea as the Soviet destroy them almost immediately, regarding the food, maybe between calling the men to the armed forces, distribution system wrecked, worldwide commerce almost at standill, there is some shortage...but from what i see, it's more a psycological thing than real, there is rationing, there are reserve, not real famine; it's more a perception plus the general frustration to be continually hit without any possibility to fight back. Regarding the EDA, while French-led, it cannot be French dominated due to France not being so overwhelimg more strong of nation like Italy or West Germany and that patner are needed to increase French capacity due to her not having the same resources of the two superpowers, so Paris is more a first among (almost) equal that particulary aggressive...and by at least the formation of the European Coal and Steel Association France interest and general Western Europe interest are considered the same (enphasis in general and collective). a question: There are two other neutrals in Europe aka Austria and Jugoslavia; the first is behold by the declaration of Austrian neutrality to not take part in military alliance, but if Sweden has been attacked, in Wien there will be a legitimate fear that they will be the next target in case of warfare in Europe...so while there is a risk in going to cozy or even join EDA (plus a breach of the Treaty), can be worth the risk and a lot has happen to make this kind of move more possible. Jugoslavia will be more prone to stay alone, expecially if relations with the URSS are somewhat better, nevertheless i expect them to have mobilized and the army ready for wage guerrila warfare in case of invasion; it's probable that they will be asked to let troops pass from Hungary to attack Austria and Italy...making them a target for the EDA nation; well decision time even for them (with or against the URSS?) These people have already taken on most of the world so why not be even more stupid. Some people in Moscow still have some sense though: just something to remember on that note. In the Med., I am still thinking. The French and Italians have their navies and marines. If they go into Malta, they are fighting the Sovietsthough who have ships and aircraft there aplenty. That is an accurate read of how I see the UK though I am admitting maybe I went too far. First among equals it is for France though their president is still dreaming big. Austria: I need to think. I'll explore that. With Yugoslavia, they are tied into Moscow though not fully. Joining the Soviets would be a no yet so too would be fighting for the EDA too. Like Austria, I'll see where I go with that. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Nov 13, 2018 20:59:18 GMT
(286)
January 1985: The Middle East
What exactly happened in terms of the sequence of events and the motivations behind the fall of Gaddafi in Libya wasn’t widely known. General Haftar (the former colonel had the correct emblems of rank on his uniform; he was proud of them) was now in charge and Gaddafi was dead. The Soviets were pleased at this because they’d been behind this directly. That was what the other Arab regimes lead by strongmen spread from the Atlantic shores of Morocco in the west, to Syria in the north, to Egypt in the south and Iraq in the east knew. Allies and opponents of the Gaddafi-led Libya and the Soviets were unaware of how this had all occurred. They were more concerned about how it affected them. The views in the capitals of the many countries differed on specifics yet the general consensus was that the Soviets had used one of Gaddafi’s key military officers to topple him in a violent coup d’état when Gaddafi had been one of their closest allies. For the supposed allies of Moscow, this didn’t bode well for their own futures: if it could be done to Gaddafi, it could be done to them too if their actions displeased Vorotnikov. Arab regimes unfriendly to Moscow were also alarmed. They were no friends of Gaddafi but without him there they feared a wave of regional instability spreading from Libya in addition to making them consider that this was how the Soviets treated supposed friends so how would they treat those against them? With the latter – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and the Gulf Arab Monarchies foremost among these –, none were at war with the Soviets yet their anti-Moscow position was something that had been pushed against with force used. The Soviet’s allies, Iraq, Syria and Yemen had been long doing as they were told but had strove to maintain their independence. Their leaders didn’t want to lose that… and also their lives too.
Reaction came to the partially-understood toppling of Gaddafi. In Iraq, Saddam arranged for the deaths to occur of a trio of his leading generals. They had ‘accidents’, low-key affairs rather than anything dramatic, to forestall any challenge to Saddam from men he regarded as too close to Soviet influence. Assad moved several Syrian senior officers he viewed with suspicion to less-important positions and had his secret police watch them intensely with a view to giving them Iraqi-style accidents at any moment. In Yemen, gifts were given to high-ranking generals and further promises made on that note to keep people who had Moscow ties sweet. Egypt and Libya were still technically at war though there had been no outbreaks of fighting since last summer. Sadat was long dead and buried, killed by Palestinian proxies of Gaddafi, and Mubarak remained wary of another assassination on Egyptian soil: that being himself. He was always on the move and surrounded by loyal people. Once the news came from Libya that Gaddafi was dead and killed due to Soviet wishes, Mubarak instructed his massed military forces on the border to allow for passage to be made of defectors and any former regime figures. They would be allowed into Egypt yet kept under guard. Such people could be useful for the future, even if their association with the deceased Gaddafi would otherwise make them distasteful. Other Libyans already in Egypt, long-standing opponents of Gaddafi, wouldn’t be allowed to murder their fellow countrymen as they might wish to but would instead ‘talk’ with them to see if any could be useful for the joint aims of Egypt and a future Cairo-aligned Libya. Saudi Arabia was home to many Egyptian troops, those facing both Iraq and Yemen in an ongoing stand-off. Providing for them was taxing for Saudi and had become mightily costly in terms of a financial drain since the flow of oil from the country to the West had been cut off by war. The Saudis were looking for an opening for some time and they found one in the fallout elsewhere in the Middle East following Gaddafi’s fall. With Egyptian backing, Saudi diplomatic efforts commenced to start to woo Soviet allies. Assad and Saddam both received visits from Saudi princes (Yemen was ignored) who whispered dire warnings in their ears over the Soviets deposing them if they didn’t do exactly as demanded yet they could still face hostile action even if they did. Did they want to end up like Gaddafi had done? There was another way for them and their futures. Break away from Moscow’s orbit. Do it carefully, naturally, but think about your own futures should you stay with them. Find away to get out of the mess you have got yourself in was the message… though none of these secret diplomatic missions came with the promise of overt Saudi or Egyptian military support to them.
Assad and Saddam each listened. There was no harm in listening, was there?
There was one democratic country in the region, one not led by a strongman or an autocratic royal family. Israel, certainly not an Arab nation, was the only democracy there. While neutral throughout the conflict, Israel remained part of America’s orbit. Quite rightly, the thinking in Tel Aviv since the beginning of the war began for others was that once the Soviets were done with the United States, Israel would be next on their list. Such an independent and strong country with a system of government like Israel’s, surrounded by hostile Arab countries which the Soviets would get to do their dirty work for them, had no future in a Soviet dominated world. Imaginations of Arab armies settling scores for decades of Israeli behaviour were had in Tel Aviv. Those weren’t pleasant. Neither would be the alternative to that because if it came to it, if those Arab armies came, supported by the Soviets, it would be the Sampson Option that would occur.
Many things that went wrong in the Middle East in terms of disasters and wars were blamed on Israel. If someone died, the Zionists had done it. If a plane crashed, Mossad was responsible. If hunger or disease occurred, it was the work of Israel. This was widespread. Arab countries blamed Israel for a lot of things, a convenient scapegoat for their own failings: an enemy to keep their own people in check. Over the past several months, many things that had happened through the region had been the work of Israel. Imagine that! All the things that Israel was accused of doing, all of those alleged actions, were now coming true. Israeli involvement was to blame for a series of accidents with shipping which occurred in the Suez Canal which the Egyptians responded to by slowing the passage of shipping due to the need for an increase in security (they knew those accidents weren’t what they appeared to be) with the result being an angry Moscow. Killings and disappearances in Lebanon were the work of local proxies which Israel put to work, all to give the Syrians and headache there and stop them from fully aiding the Soviets with their grand Mediterranean plans. Syrian interference in Jordan at the behest of Moscow was too forestalled by Israeli actions. There was also Israeli interference in Iranian-Iraqi relations where they caused several firefights on the border between those two nations: Moscow sided with its clients in Tehran to the fury of Baghdad. This all cost Israel dear. Mossad was tasked to do a lot, asked again and again to strike here and there. They lost men, including some of their own dead or captured rather than expendable local proxies. Rescue attempts had to be made to get Israelis out of foreign hands: Mossad would let such people be lost for good without trying.
What occurred with both Turkey first and the Libya caught Israel off-guard. Turkey cosied up to the Soviets, granting them access to the Turkish Straits with free reign for their shipping. The secular generals in Ankara, who Israel had believed they could count upon to remain opposed to Moscow, changed tack. Mossad was providing intelligence on what the Saudis were up to (if they knew, the KGB was sure to as well) with Iraq and Syria but this flew in the face of a Turkish about-turn when it came to their relations with the Soviets. Libya was far more important though. The new regime there was better understood by Israel in how it had come about and Haftar being pushed to do what he did. However, how it all developed with Haftar acting on his own when motivated by Soviet support all occurred so fast. Israel didn’t like this. They feared just what the Arab regimes did: that Moscow would find someone in the countries of their allies to topple governments even on their own or with overt Soviet support. That would bring closer to reality Israel’s doomsday fears. Israel could come under attack – treated as a sure thing in Tel Aviv; not a possibility – earlier than thought, without Soviet victory elsewhere in the world. That whole pre-considered sequence of events which Israel had foreseen, a road-to-war scenario, was shattered.
What to do, what to do? Israel was feeling itself pushed into a corner. They couldn’t allow another Soviet-aligned country to become the vassal state (Iran like) which they believed that Libya was soon to be whether Haftar wanted it to be or not. Their interests now were the same as those of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Any overt alliance with Cairo and Riyadh wouldn’t do: Israel wouldn’t have any serious internal political fallout but it would bring down those regimes from within to be an ally of Israel. However, things could be done behind the scenes. Israel decided to make their own diplomatic moves to establish ties with Arab neighbours of theirs who shared the same geo-political objectives. Things were about to get even more ‘interesting’ in the Middle East than they long had been.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Nov 13, 2018 21:01:20 GMT
China next, then Korea. Afterwards a short interlude tidying up 'Colorado Bound' (two meanings to "bound" there) where I left Bella, Putin and the Briton DLB.
Then, back to the US and the road to an EVENTUAL end to the war (by the New Year real time).
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Nov 13, 2018 22:21:03 GMT
China next, then Korea. Afterwards a short interlude tidying up 'Colorado Bound' (two meanings to "bound" there) where I left Bella, Putin and the Briton DLB. Then, back to the US and the road to an EVENTUAL end to the war (by the New Year real time). We truly are getting to the endgame then. I'm expecting something drastic. And once again, we see the Soviets sacrificing long-term strength for short-term gains. They really should be more careful. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Nov 13, 2018 22:52:19 GMT
China next, then Korea. Afterwards a short interlude tidying up 'Colorado Bound' (two meanings to "bound" there) where I left Bella, Putin and the Briton DLB. Then, back to the US and the road to an EVENTUAL end to the war (by the New Year real time). We truly are getting to the endgame then. I'm expecting something drastic. And once again, we see the Soviets sacrificing long-term strength for short-term gains. They really should be more careful. Hold on to your hat! That they are doing just that and it will bite. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,867
Likes: 13,252
|
Post by stevep on Nov 14, 2018 0:06:45 GMT
James Interesting suggestion that the Soviet position in the ME is likely to prove to be a stack of cards that will come tumbling down once the local rulers decide the Soviets have lost. Although possibly waiting until an actual peace is concluded for fear that they might be sold off as expendable by the western powers.
You hint its going to be nasty in N America shortly but hopefully that will be the last gasp of the Soviet forces and ideally if they attack 1st they can be handled more easily than if they counter-attack American offensives.
With Austria I would suspect that Vienna is hunkering down big time. If the EDA makes an approach I suspect it would want to agree some support if its attacked but otherwise stay out of actual fighting if it can as it knows things will be bloody.
I would be bloody surprised if the British army has been planning operations including advances into E Germany as that would have been so impossible that it would have been a waste of time. Even if war does come between the Soviets and the EDA unless the former collapses quickly, and your suggested otherwise, it would be a long and bloody path before any combined allied/EDA force got anywhere near the IGB and if there is anything coherent in Moscow that could be followed by a shot across the bow. If the Soviets are willing to use nukes against Sweden their very likely to use them to defend their E European buffer zone.
As I've said, if there's no sign of a likely EDA collapse then the priority for Britain, to protect its own interests, would be to support Norway and help liberate Iceland as that would greatly reduce pressure on Britain and the Atlantic supply lines. American involvement in any drive into eastern Europe is as you say unlikely for the moment and I suspect Britain would tend to follow the US/NATO lead. Its different if it does look like British forces were needed to stop a massive Soviet victory but that doesn't appear to be the case.
Do the Soviets have much left of their Black Sea/Med fleet as it sounds like it got badly cut up in the battles that have occurred so far? Lost the bulk of its heavy units anyway. They have a forward base but hopefully that's going to be a pig for them to supply even before any EDA intervention. Which would for Iberia even more than Britain reduce if not virtually stop the battering their been getting as the Soviets have more important targets.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,093
Likes: 49,488
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 14, 2018 16:20:20 GMT
We truly are getting to the endgame then. I'm expecting something drastic. And once again, we see the Soviets sacrificing long-term strength for short-term gains. They really should be more careful. Hold on to your hat! That they are doing just that and it will bite. Question, is this timeline already surpass the date of the Red Dawn classic. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Nov 14, 2018 20:47:49 GMT
James Interesting suggestion that the Soviet position in the ME is likely to prove to be a stack of cards that will come tumbling down once the local rulers decide the Soviets have lost. Although possibly waiting until an actual peace is concluded for fear that they might be sold off as expendable by the western powers.
You hint its going to be nasty in N America shortly but hopefully that will be the last gasp of the Soviet forces and ideally if they attack 1st they can be handled more easily than if they counter-attack American offensives.
With Austria I would suspect that Vienna is hunkering down big time. If the EDA makes an approach I suspect it would want to agree some support if its attacked but otherwise stay out of actual fighting if it can as it knows things will be bloody.
I would be bloody surprised if the British army has been planning operations including advances into E Germany as that would have been so impossible that it would have been a waste of time. Even if war does come between the Soviets and the EDA unless the former collapses quickly, and your suggested otherwise, it would be a long and bloody path before any combined allied/EDA force got anywhere near the IGB and if there is anything coherent in Moscow that could be followed by a shot across the bow. If the Soviets are willing to use nukes against Sweden their very likely to use them to defend their E European buffer zone.
As I've said, if there's no sign of a likely EDA collapse then the priority for Britain, to protect its own interests, would be to support Norway and help liberate Iceland as that would greatly reduce pressure on Britain and the Atlantic supply lines. American involvement in any drive into eastern Europe is as you say unlikely for the moment and I suspect Britain would tend to follow the US/NATO lead. Its different if it does look like British forces were needed to stop a massive Soviet victory but that doesn't appear to be the case.
Do the Soviets have much left of their Black Sea/Med fleet as it sounds like it got badly cut up in the battles that have occurred so far? Lost the bulk of its heavy units anyway. They have a forward base but hopefully that's going to be a pig for them to supply even before any EDA intervention. Which would for Iberia even more than Britain reduce if not virtually stop the battering their been getting as the Soviets have more important targets.
Steve
All those regimes are gambling on coming out of this on top no matter who wins or if no one wins. There is a lot of self belief that they can succeed if they are clever. Both the US and the Soviets are planning offensives in March though events will come to a head starting sooner. It will be a big fight. Austria: yep, that is how I think things will end up. No promises but most likely. Military planners plan! There have bene those plans for a time to go into West Germany to support the EDA under attack and then turn things around eventually. That is just thinking, like the ideas ariound sending the Army to North America was. Events will see things happen though. And, yep, the risk of a Soviet nuclear strike to stop a march going Berlin>Warsaw>Minsk>Moscow is very, very real. There are still Soviet ships in the Med.: all back east of Malta now. The heavies got hit along with smaller ones yet still some escaped because the Allies couldn't push home their attack after all their own losses. Spain needs the breathing room. They will now be looking at liberating Melilla once they can. Question, is this timeline already surpass the date of the Red Dawn classic. Took me aminute to get what you mean. The movie has a war start in September and a story finish in the spring. Say six to eight months. Yet how long the war goes on for, how it ends and everything else are not answered. There is a shot of a memorial stone talking of the war ending so it didn't see the end of the world occur. The rest if up to me there, which has been the case with this story all along. |
|
