The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: THIRD FRENCH EMPIRE: Can the UK stop it?!?!?!
Godofgamblers    8/24/2006 4:42:38 AM
Wishing to write his name into the history books, Jaacques Chirac resolves to establish the THIRD FRENCH EMPIRE.

He secures the agreement of some major Arab states (Lebanon, Syria and Palestine) to join a French commonwealth leading to a merger of states. Many other Arab states consider the motion, hoping to create a counterweight in the region to the US/Israel bloc and considering the sizable number of Arabs living in France.

As for Africa, Chirac decides to take it outright as part of the new French empire. Some Arab countries such as Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia will be allowed to maintain puppet goverments for historic reasons, however.

As a sign that he means business, French marines land at Valletta with CAS from 70 Rafales from the CdG. SEAD neturalizes Malta Int?l Airport. Malta?s Bulldog fighters are no match for the French airforce. Sorties are launched from Corsica and CdG to destroy Malta?s military capability. French Legionnaires from Djibouti land and take Hal-Far and other important military objectives.

Once air supremacy is achieved, Malta?s military forces are identified, targetted and neutralized, and regular French army units supported by 100 LeClercs land at the ports of Birrzebbuga and Marsaxlokk, sealing Malta?s fate.

Africa watches in shock as the French Tricolore flies above Malta?s Parliament. Chirac publicly proclaims that Malta will serve as the stepping stone to ops in Africa should some countries be non-compliant.

Coffee literally flies out of Tony Blair?s nose as he reads the morning paper: FRANCE TAKES MALTA IN LIGHTNING ATTACK.

For historic reasons, he would like to free Malta. However, a few quick phonecalls reveal that the EU and the US will not interfere in this matter.

In fact, the US is glad that the French will be taking a more active role in the ME and too many of their forces are engaged in Iraq to help out the Brits anyway. This will be another Faklands type war, Bush advises.

Chirac calls and tells Blair that he must condone and accept the French invasion publicly. Chirac will be beginning his Africa drive and doesn?t want any hiccups.

Blair stares into space wondering what he can do faced with this ?fait accompli?? If he chooses to rush to Malta?s aid, it won?t be the Belgrano he?ll be facing but the CdG in a warzone dotted with French military bases? should he really stir up the hornet?s nest?


The Question IS:

Does Britain have the military wherewithal to wrest Malta from the French without (1) going nuclear (2) receiving aid from other countries (3) attacking France proper (for fear of escalation)?


 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT
AdamB       4/22/2007 8:33:15 AM
" have no doubt that the French could take Malta. I have no doubt that they could repulse UK efforts to retake it because of air superiority and the proximity of French bases"
 
The last time I checked, the French Air Force has more personnel than the RAF, but the RAF has more planes than the French Air Force.  And the German and also the Italian.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       4/22/2007 12:26:44 PM
Title
The last time I checked, the French Air Force has more personnel than the RAF, but the RAF has more planes than the French Air Force.  And the German and also the Italian.
You check very bad.France has the most numerous holding of operational fighters in Europe and probably you forgot French aeronaval and its 67 fighters today.
Only CFE treaty numbers could be considered to be reliable as they include all operational fighters and it is check by international commission.
Don't confuse what is in front lines squadrons in FAF and total inventory (in France fighter in depot for maintenance are not listed in FAF official numbers).
link
France has roughly 300 M2000, 200 Mirage F1CT/CR, 60 super Etendard et 40+ rafale.
Compare with UK whole numbers (504 aircraft in inventory).Moreover UK has no decent air combat fighters except a squadron of Eurofighter in IOC.Tornado ADV are a joke even vs oldest M2000C with 60 km range S530D since they can shot Tornado ADV unpunishled as they can turn around with a 15000 feets above at an altitude Tornado ADV AMRAAM are uneffective at medium range due to altitude difference.
The true is that RAF would not last more than few days vs FAF.All professionals know that.
FAF is the most potent after USA in western world and on par on Israel.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       4/22/2007 6:48:49 PM
AdamB :
""France attacking Malta?""

I am just following the thread .
Myself , I wouldn 't even bother about taking Malta . No use and too much problems afterwards ...

Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       4/22/2007 9:52:29 PM
FS :
""The truth is that the RAF would not last more than few days vs the FAF. All professionals know that.
FAF is the most potent Air Force after USA in western world and on par on Israel.""

I agree . No doubt about it .
I rate British Pilots very high but they do not have an Aircraft able to take on a M2000 or a Rafale . Our Pilots are extremely good too .
Honestly , the RAF taking on the FAF is a no-no . It would be a bloodbath .

Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Tercio    GoG   4/23/2007 9:43:22 AM




I understand the cultural connection between France and North Africa but there is a similar connection between Malta and  Italy. In fact before the second world war Italian was the language of the upper class and the nobility. Consider also that an invasion of Malta undermines Italian security in the central Mediterranean and, other than the defence agreement, it is in the interest of Italy to deal with this threat. With the help of the Royal Navy they can do this.



 



An Anglo-Italian Alliance then means that France will have to do something VERY clever to stay in the game.



 



P.S. OMG Steve Irwin is dead




I quite agree, MC, that France can not fend off both the UK and Italy in the Med. You are quite right in bringing up the Malta/Italy relationship. However, I should point out that the question of this thread was "Can the UK stop France", not "Can the UK and Italy stop France".

For example, if we were discussing whether the UK could take the Falklands on its own before the actual conflict took place, it would have been unfair to assume that the UK would act in tandem with US forces in the region since, although it was a distinct possibility, US aid of the sort would immediately void the entire exercise. Meaning, that the outcome would not be in question.

 

For the same reason, I think we should assume that the UK does not have Italian aid. To justify this, many would have bet their bottom dollar that the US would have supported the UK militarily in the Falklands, but in fact that wasn't the case.

 

Perhaps Italy is afraid of angering France or Italy has been promised choice pieces of Africa that ITaly had historic 'rights' to such as Ethiopia in return for non-action...

 


GoG, some ramdom thougths about your scenario:
1) Malta is an EU member. If the expected answer of the EU to an EU nation invading and conquering another EU nation it's to politely cough and look to another side, be should better dismantle EU, today better than tomorrow.
2) Your scenario kick too many hornet nests. An expansionist France abusing one of its EU mates in its way to re-build its imperium would have too many opposition:
  - The French former colonies. After such an independence war, would Algeria happily join a French empire?, I don't think so (ditto for Morocco and so forth...)
  - Israel. Any pan-arabic development is a threat for Israel, by definition, and to have it led by France makes no difference.
  - Italy. After you Malta's overture, don't you think Rome would be afraid of a French liberation of, say, Sicily?, count them as opposition, belligerant or not (for instance, supporting the Maltese insurgents...).
  - Spain. Change Italy by Spain, and Sicily by the Ballearic island and you'll have Spain as opposed to the French intentions. Futhermore, your scenario considers Morocco, Tunis and Algiers all united under the French yoke..., foes by the North and by the South, do not expect Spanish collaboration with France (and Gibraltar would not change that, we had enough with one Godoy, a second one would be too much).
  - US. Do you REALLY think the US would bless such a landslide in the Med?.
 
The Falklands was mainly a British-Argentinian affair because leaving aside Cold War considerations only UK and Argentina had interests in that corner if the Souther Atlantic. On the other hand, the Gibraltar-Med-Suez axis is one of the busiest sea lanes in the world. The burden generated by live fire operations in there would not make happy anyone in the region nor anyone out the region with freighters in the way.
 
Tercio 
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       4/23/2007 8:52:19 PM








I understand the cultural connection between France and North Africa but there is a similar connection between Malta and  Italy. In fact before the second world war Italian was the language of the upper class and the nobility. Consider also that an invasion of Malta undermines Italian security in the central Mediterranean and, other than the defence agreement, it is in the interest of Italy to deal with this threat. With the help of the Royal Navy they can do this.





 





An Anglo-Italian Alliance then means that France will have to do something VERY clever to stay in the game.





 





P.S. OMG Steve Irwin is dead







I quite agree, MC, that France can not fend off both the UK and Italy in the Med. You are quite right in bringing up the Malta/Italy relationship. However, I should point out that the question of this thread was "Can the UK stop France", not "Can the UK and Italy stop France".



For example, if we were discussing whether the UK could take the Falklands on its own before the actual conflict took place, it would have been unfair to assume that the UK would act in tandem with US forces in the region since, although it was a distinct possibility, US aid of the sort would immediately void the entire exercise. Meaning, that the outcome would not be in question.



 



For the same reason, I think we should assume that the UK does not have Italian aid. To justify this, many would have bet their bottom dollar that the US would have supported the UK militarily in the Falklands, but in fact that wasn't the case.



 



Perhaps Italy is afraid of angering France or Italy has been promised choice pieces of Africa that ITaly had historic 'rights' to such as Ethiopia in return for non-action...



 




GoG, some ramdom thougths about your scenario:

1) Malta is an EU member. If the expected answer of the EU to an EU nation invading and conquering another EU nation it's to politely cough and look to another side, be should better dismantle EU, today better than tomorrow.

2) Your scenario kick too many hornet nests. An expansionist France abusing one of its EU mates in its way to re-build its imperium would have too many opposition:

  - The French former colonies. After such an independence war, would Algeria happily join a French empire?, I don't think so (ditto for Morocco and so forth...)

  - Israel. Any pan-arabic development is a threat for Israel, by definition, and to have it led by France makes no difference.

  - Italy. After you Malta's overture, don't you think Rome would be afraid of a French liberation of, say, Sicily?, count them as opposition, belligerant or not (for instance, supporting the Maltese insurgents...).

  - Spain. Change Italy by Spain, and Sicily by the Ballearic island and you'll have Spain as opposed to the French intentions. Futhermore, your scenario considers Morocco, Tunis and Algiers all united under the French yoke..., foes by the North and by the South, do not expect Spanish collaboration with France (and Gibraltar would not change that, we had enough with one Godoy, a second one would be too much).

  - US. Do you REALLY think the US would bless such a landslide in the Med?.

 

The Falklands was mainly a British-Argentinian affair because leaving aside Cold War considerations only UK and Argentina had interests in that corner if the Souther Atlantic. On the other hand, the Gibraltar-Med-Suez axis is one of the busiest sea lanes in the world. The burden generated by live fire operations in there would not make happy anyone in the region nor anyone out the region with freighters in the way.

 

Tercio 



Good points, as usual, Tercio, but let me defend my scenario by saying that first of all, it is mostly a fantasy since France is not going to rampage thru Africa any time soon.. It is more a question of UK/French power in the Med.
 
However, I can rebut some of the points you made.
 
Yes, Malta is an EU member. This part is admittedly a bit fantastic. However, let me remind you that in the Falklands War, although surely Argentina was signatory to various defence pacts with various SA nations, as well as the US, as soon as the bullets started flying she was on her own. NATO did little if nothing to help the UK either.
 
As for the former members of French West Africa, you are quite right; for cultural reasons they would reject French rule. However, I stated that France would allow them the luxury of maintaining puppet gov'ts for them to save face. Egypt is very much that way already and I wonder about Algeria. It is supposedly 'fiercely independent' (at least their propaganda would lead you to believe that) and yet the winners of elections there were brushed away and the gov't only exists, I imagine, thanks to western support. So it is a de fato puppet gov't already.
 
Italy and Spain would surely send out stiff diplomatic notes to France but probably would not act until they saw the way things were going. They would wait for the military resolution so they could measure their response, don't you think?
 
The US may well welcome the move to (1) control Islamic countries in the region and (2) to counter Chinese influence in Africa.
 
Royal would surely not opt for such a scenario... but Sarko may not be entirely opposed to it...
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       4/23/2007 8:55:53 PM
GoG :
""Royal would surely not opt for such a scenario... but Sarko may not be entirely opposed to it...""

lol ! Funny but innacurate ;)
Sarko is not a warmonger , he 's just tough .

Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Tercio       4/24/2007 10:13:33 AM













I understand the cultural connection between France and North Africa but there is a similar connection between Malta and  Italy. In fact before the second world war Italian was the language of the upper class and the nobility. Consider also that an invasion of Malta undermines Italian security in the central Mediterranean and, other than the defence agreement, it is in the interest of Italy to deal with this threat. With the help of the Royal Navy they can do this.







 







An Anglo-Italian Alliance then means that France will have to do something VERY clever to stay in the game.







 







P.S. OMG Steve Irwin is dead










I quite agree, MC, that France can not fend off both the UK and Italy in the Med. You are quite right in bringing up the Malta/Italy relationship. However, I should point out that the question of this thread was "Can the UK stop France", not "Can the UK and Italy stop France".





For example, if we were discussing whether the UK could take the Falklands on its own before the actual conflict took place, it would have been unfair to assume that the UK would act in tandem with US forces in the region since, although it was a distinct possibility, US aid of the sort would immediately void the entire exercise. Meaning, that the outcome would not be in question.





 





For the same reason, I think we should assume that the UK does not have Italian aid. To justify this, many would have bet their bottom dollar that the US would have supported the UK militarily in the Falklands, but in fact that wasn't the case.





 





Perhaps Italy is afraid of angering France or Italy has been promised choice pieces of Africa that ITaly had historic 'rights' to such as Ethiopia in return for non-action...





 







GoG, some ramdom thougths about your scenario:



1) Malta is an EU member. If the expected answer of the EU to an EU nation invading and conquering another EU nation it's to politely cough and look to another side, be should better dismantle EU, today better than tomorrow.



2) Your scenario kick too many hornet nests. An expansionist France abusing one of its EU mates in its way to re-build its imperium would have too many opposition:



  - The French former colonies. After such an independence war, would Algeria happily join a French empire?, I don't think so (ditto for Morocco and so forth...)



  - Israel. Any pan-arabic development is a threat for Israel, by definition, and to have it led by France makes no difference.



  - Italy. After you Malta's overture, don't you think Rome would be afraid of a French liberation of, say, Sicily?, count them as opposition, belligerant or not (for instance, supporting the Maltese insurgents...).



  - Spain. Change Italy by Spain, and Sicily by the Ballearic island and you'll have Spain as opposed to the French intentions. Futhermore, your scenario considers Morocco, Tunis and Algiers all united under the French yoke..., foes by the North and by the South, do not expect Spanish collaboration with France (and Gibraltar would not change that, we had enough with one Godoy, a second one would be too much).



  - US. Do you REALLY think the US would bless such a landslide in the Med?.



 



The Falklands was mainly a British-Argentinian affair because leaving aside Cold War considerations only UK and Argentina had interests in that corner if the Souther Atlantic. On the other hand, the Gibraltar-Med-Suez axis is one of the busiest sea lanes in the world. The burden generated by live fire operations in there would not make happy anyone in the region nor anyone out the region with freighters in the way.



 



Tercio 





Good points, as usual, Tercio, but let me defend my scenario by saying that first of all, it is mostly a fantasy since France is not going to rampage thru Africa any time soon.. It is more a question of UK/French power in the Med.

 

However, I can rebut some of the points you made.

 

Yes, Malta is an EU member. This part is admittedly a bit fantastic. However, let me remind you that in the Falklands War, although surely Argentina was signatory to various defence pacts with various SA nations, as well as the US, as soon as the bullets started flying she was on her own. NATO did little if nothing to help the UK either.
 

I'm not aware of the details of the mutual defence pacts signed by Argentina and its SA neighbours (and the US), but I'm pretty sure none of them considered to assist Argentina to start a war of aggresion. On the other hand, you are right about no NATO nation sent troops to help Britain..., mainly because the Falklands were not covered by NATO Treaty (as neither Ceuta and Melilla nor the French Outremer, if I'm not wrong). Nevertheless, US backed UK with intel and supplies, France shut down its support to Argentina (France didn't deliver the additional Exocets Argentina had ordered, there is some controversy about this particular, but...), Spain arrested Argentinian operatives attempting to blow up UK vessels in Gibraltar, and last but not least, other NATO nations filled the gap in NATO defences left by the British forces heading to the South, allowing Britain to retake the Falklands without compromising NATO’s collective defence.


 

As for the former members of French West Africa, you are quite right; for cultural reasons they would reject French rule. However, I stated that France would allow them the luxury of maintaining puppet gov'ts for them to save face. Egypt is very much that way already and I wonder about Algeria. It is supposedly 'fiercely independent' (at least their propaganda would lead you to believe that) and yet the winners of elections there were brushed away and the gov't only exists, I imagine, thanks to western support. So it is a de fato puppet gov't already.
 

It’s probably fair to assume Mubarak gets advantage of the support of the West in keeping himself in power, but Egypt is far to be a Western protectorate (besides Al Qaeda’s propaganda). About Argelia, was the Argelia military who aborted the Islamist electoral victory. Of course the West blessed the coup, but it came up from elements inside Argelia, not from Western gunboat diplomacy (again, besides Al Qaeda’s propaganda).


 

Italy and Spain would surely send out stiff diplomatic notes to France but probably would not act until they saw the way things were going. They would wait for the military resolution so they could measure their response, don't you think?
 

I’m not suggesting Italy&Spain were going to jump to France’s throat right after the Maltese invasion. What I’m suggesting is since in your scenario France mutates to a ruthless invader, I consider it’s fair to assume Italy&Spain would cease to consider France as an ally and they would start considering it as a threat. On the other hand, UK appears in your scenario as the defender of the International law, challenging France in order to give Malta back to the Maltese.

So, without shooting a single shot, Italy might provide UK with intel and support in order to let some SBS/SAS teams to be inserted in Malta just to keep the French busy. In this way, Italy is providing support to the UK without too much risk of starting a shooting war with France. With the same approach, Spain logically might start patrolling energically from Cape San Vicente to the East of the Ballearic islands making significantly clear Spain would not want French military assets close to its coasts (something understandable after the French aggression), letting the UK subs to pass the stroke point the Straits of Gibraltar with more chances of survival. However , a British surface task force crossing the Straits would have a very difficult time unless Spain was involved more actively in Britain’s side. France still would not be able to use Spain as attack axis, but Morocco in your scenario is in French’ side so…


 

The US may well welcome the move to (1) control Islamic countries in the region and (2) to counter Chinese influence in Africa.
 

(1) I don’t know why. After all, you stated that one of the appeal of this French 3rd empire for the Arab nations is to be a counterbalance of the US (and Israel) power in the region. You have to choose, either counterbalance or in US advantage.(2) The US can easily counter Chinese influence in Africa by paying more than the Chinese. China doesn’t have military facilities in Africa, softpower can be countered by softpower, without destabilizating the whole region.

(3) If the US wanted to actively help th UK, they would not need to divert resources from Irak&Afghanistan, they just would have to give Britain access to its facilities in the Med (Rota, Naples, Aviano...) , without to mention to use the VIth fleet in Britain's help...
 Tercio

Royal would surely not opt for such a scenario... but Sarko may not be entirely opposed to it...



 
Quote    Reply

Tercio       4/24/2007 2:35:32 PM
I wrote "...pass the stroke point the Straits of Gibraltar with more...", I should have written "...pass the choke point the Straits of Gibraltar are with more...".
 
Tercio
 
 
Quote    Reply

Ozymandias    Horesemen of St George ride again   4/24/2007 2:38:00 PM
 

Tony Blair looks around and decides war is expensive and uncertain, however…….

 

Later that afternoon the Prime Minister announces to the House of Commons that the UK has frozen all French assets, and suspended all EU contributions until such time as France withdraws from Malta and pays compensation. UK suspends freedom of labour regulations for French Citizens

 

The Commonwealth with the exception of Canada announces that it is following suit.(Malta is a member)

 

Eurotunnel paper becomes untradeable within minutes. EDF has 40% knocked of value by close of business, most french banks lose 10-15% and the Euro drops 20% on the London Markets.

200,000 French citizens begin a long journey back to la patrie. In Hartlepool zoo the monkeys begin to look very worried.  But 50,000 UK residents of French origin declare that they are citizens of Europe not lackeys of the criminal Chirac regime and seek political asylum, led by Thierry Henry and a novelist whose name I forget. 50,000 more check the value of their UK property and then seek political asylum.

 

NY opens and the Euro starts at 50 cents to the $

 

Holland shouts yippee and announces it is leaving the Euro zone. Denmark says told you so and leaves Euro zone. Several German Lande suspend payment to the Federal government of sums equivalent to EU contributions and press for the reintroduction of DM. Italy breathes sigh of relief, leaves Euro zone and drops interest rates.

 

Tokyo opens and Euro continues to fall. France announces it will meet EU payments to French citizens and prints money.

 

Ireland, Spain and Portugal leave Euro zone.

 

Senegal applies for membership of the Commonwealth. Martinique declares independence from France. UK and Caribbean forces land to disarm the French garrison, no shots are fired. (thats your military bit)

 

At the end of the month the New Franc is trading at 1:4 to the dollar. Because of the futile effort to support the Euro French dollar reserves are minimal. Petrol prices double then double again. Imports more than double. New Franc practically wortheless outside France

 

French farmers blockade Paris. Food prices rise by 20% over a weekend.

 

Rioting breaks out in most French cities.

 

Chirac declares a state of siege and calls up French reserves to preserve order. Up to one third do not obey. More rioting in Paris.

 

French Government attempts to withdraw to Versailles, but is stopped by the mob and forced to return to Paris.

 

Mob assaults government offices, Chirac and most of his senior officials executed by revolutionary tribunal.

 

Sixth republic proclaimed.

 

 

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       4/24/2007 6:47:13 PM
Ozymandias , you are very clever .
You 're wrong on some important points but you ' re right on others .
You made me think a lot ... Point taken ;)

Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       4/24/2007 8:26:11 PM

I'm not aware of the details of the mutual defence pacts signed by Argentina and its SA neighbours (and the US), but I'm pretty sure none of them considered to assist Argentina to start a war of aggresion. On the other hand, you are right about no NATO nation sent troops to help Britain..., mainly because the Falklands were not covered by NATO Treaty (as neither Ceuta and Melilla nor the French Outremer, if I'm not wrong). Nevertheless, US backed UK with intel and supplies, France shut down its support to Argentina (France didn't deliver the additional Exocets Argentina had ordered, there is some controversy about this particular, but...), Spain arrested Argentinian operatives attempting to blow up UK vessels in Gibraltar, and last but not least, other NATO nations filled the gap in NATO defences left by the British forces heading to the South, allowing Britain to retake the Falklands without compromising NATO’s collective defence.

Argentina could well have received help from its SA neighbours but since Argentina started the war, it was tricky. The treaties provide assistance in the event of attack; Argentina would argue that 'Malvinas' were Argentinean and that they were only defending themselves from UK occupation.... however, I guess the other states didn't buy this lol. The US and France did give limited aid to the UK, but as we can both see, nothing substantial. Ultimately, it was up to the parties involved to decide the issue. 

 It’s probably fair to assume Mubarak gets advantage of the support of the West in keeping himself in power, but Egypt is far to be a Western protectorate (besides Al Qaeda’s propaganda). About Argelia, was the Argelia military who aborted the Islamist electoral victory. Of course the West blessed the coup, but it came up from elements inside Argelia, not from Western gunboat diplomacy (again, besides Al Qaeda’s propaganda).

 It would only be a small step further to becoming a full-on puppet gov't. Algeria probably enjoys more support than we know. Consider the ideological support they are receiving now: no UN resolutions, no mentions in the newspapers of the shutdown of the democratic process, no linking of Algeria to the WOT... I have never once read an indignant editorial about Algeria's flaunting of the democratic process, I have never read any critique of their human rights record, even though I'm sure it's just as bad as the countries around them... they are being supported, my friend...

 I’m not suggesting Italy&Spain were going to jump to France’s throat right after the Maltese invasion. What I’m suggesting is since in your scenario France mutates to a ruthless invader, I consider it’s fair to assume Italy&Spain would cease to consider France as an ally and they would start considering it as a threat. On the other hand, UK appears in your scenario as the defender of the International law, challenging France in order to give Malta back to the Maltese.

So, without shooting a single shot, Italy might provide UK with intel and support in order to let some SBS/SAS teams to be inserted in Malta just to keep the French busy. In this way, Italy is providing support to the UK without too much risk of starting a shooting war with France. With the same approach, Spain logically might start patrolling energically from Cape San Vicente to the East of the Ballearic islands making significantly clear Spain would not want French military assets close to its coasts (something understandable after the French aggression), letting the UK subs to pass the stroke point the Straits of Gibraltar with more chances of survival. However , a British surface task force crossing the Straits would have a very difficult time unless Spain was involved more actively in Britain’s side. France still would not be able to use Spain as attack axis, but Morocco in your scenario is in French’ side so…

 You're quite right. SPain and Italy would oppose, diplomatically and otherwise, France's schemes... but France doesn't care. That's part of the game, right? 'C'est de bonne guerre' 

 1) I don’t know why. After all, you stated that one of the appeal of this French 3rd empire for the Arab nations is to be a counterbalance of the US (and Israel) power in the region. You have to choose, either counterbalance or in US advantage.
 
You've got me here. I forgot the initial scenario...! Quite right.

 
(3) If the US wanted to actively help th UK, they would not need to divert resources from Irak&Afghanistan, they just would have to give Britain access to its facilities in the Med (Rota, Naples, Aviano...) , without to mention to use the VIth fleet in Britain's help...

 See my comments re: Spain and Italy.
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       4/24/2007 8:33:54 PM
Ozymandias,
Ozymandias, quite brilliant! This thread has inspired the creative side of members...!
 
I'm not so sure that France would break down so fast.... it would depend what happened in the field. Quick successes and consolidation may strengthen the Euro, who knows?
 
Deep down I wonder if this whole European project is doomed to failure. There are too many countries. If I were to ask the average European on the street to name all the members of the EU, would he even be able?
 
Soon Turkey and, God knows, maybe even Uzbekistan will become members. It is becoming unwieldy, unrealizable.
 
Perhaps France would do well to go it alone and build and empire. Say goodbye to the French Fry eating bureaucrats in Brussels.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    Tercio   4/25/2007 12:36:15 AM
One more thing, Tercio, I wanted to remind you that the initial question dealt with whether the UK could check France in the Med. Obviously, if you stack up opponents, Italy, Spain, the African nations, Malta, the EU etc with the UK, it seems impossible. However, this thread is primarily concerned with the UK's vs. France's capabilities.
 
France would be taking on these countries one at a time to an extent since they would not all oppose France militarily at first. I chose UK as the first country that would militarily oppose France though eventually others may follow suit.
 
As an example, if SP existed in 1939 and someone posted a thread, "Can Germany and its allies take on all of Europe, the USSR and the US?", the obvious answer would be 'of course not'. Whether or not Germany could take out France alone would have been a question mark. But the key is that Germany attacked its enemies bit by bit, in bite sized chunks: Czechoslovakia, Poland, France -England - Benelux, and only much later USSR and USA (when it bit off more than it could chew!).
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

E4-0811       4/25/2007 12:37:29 AM
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy