Overseas Units and Family

[Legbreaker]

I feel it needs to be stressed once again it appears Germany went it alone in both V1.0 and 2.0 timelines. There's even references of other member states debating if they should be involved or not.

The main difference between the timelines (regarding the commencement of the European hostilities) is in V1.0 Germany moved on the 7th of October, while in 2.0 they moved much earlier on the 27th of July.

In both timelines, the very first elements from mainland US did not even board aircraft until the 21st of October 1996.

The British moved earlier, with the first units arriving (probably by ship, making use of the channel ro-ro ferries) on the 14th of October. The channel tunnel could also have been used, but once France decided not to join in, this becomes very unlikely.

No non-German unit breached Pact borders until the 2nd of December, nearly 2 months after the Germans in V1.0 and 4 1/2 months in 2.0.

During this flurry of activity with everyone concentrating on getting combat units into the country, equiped from pre-positioned stores and organised ready for combat, who was left to co-ordinate civilian evacuation

I believe this situation is exactly what Paul was refering to - the priority was, and should be, getting troops into battle, not clearing out civilians.

This is not to say people wouldn't try to get out on their own, but aren't there travel restrictions placed on civilians in this event so they don't clog up the roadways and hamper military deployment

[kato13]

During this flurry of activity with everyone concentrating on getting combat units into the country, equiped from pre-positioned stores and organised ready for combat, who was left to co-ordinate civilian evacuation

Well they were certainly thinking about it.

http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doccollection=t3&id=ADA217529

Shame there is no PDF available however the Abstract does discuss evacuations "prior to and after the start of a conventional war with the Soviet Union" (emphases added)

I was thinking of a parallel situation. Say tomorrow South Korea attacked the North without US approval. Even if US forces were not involved in any way do you think the Department of State (a purely civilian organization) would order an evacuation of Non Combatants. I think the order would be signed before any ROK forces made it 10km deep.

From my perspective any commander who has any sort of long term view would want to get civilians out of the way as soon as the authorization came down. From a CYA (cover your ass) and Logistical perspective, if a commander had a choice, why wouldn't he want to remove a resource drag which does not enhance his combat strength at all. If empty trucks are going back towards an airfield with planes that have empty seats, I would make sure those seats were filled.

[Legbreaker]

That's definately an interesting document. Would love to read it.

I think we all agree that removing civilians is high on the list of preferences - I'm just worried about who's going to be running that show as 99% of everyones attention is likely to be focused firmly on the enemy.
I'm not saying it isn't doable, just difficult (which is probably why that document even exists).

[Rainbow Six]

I don't have my materials handy but, the whole thing behind NATO was mutual defense, so, if the forces are engaged with any member well, then it is now engage with all. Of course if the member nations honor their comitments which history has shown many do not.

I think the Get Out of Jail Free card for any NATO Government that did not want to fulfill its treaty obligations would be the fact that the West Germans hadn't actually been attacked - they were the aggressors (at least in V1 - I'm less familiar with the 1996 V2 timeline).

[Legbreaker]

... the West Germans hadn't actually been attacked - they were the aggressors (at least in V1 - I'm less familiar with the 1996 V2 timeline).

It's the same in V2.

[Rainbow Six]

I believe the UK has/had a similiar provision for bringing civil airliners into government service had the balloon ever gone up.

It's called the Queen's Order in the UK and can appy to civil aircraft and ships. I think it was last used during the Falklands when a large number of civilian ships formed part of the Task Force (including the luxury liner QE2).

Personally, I think that once British and US reinforcements start arriving in West Germany in October 1996 that would trigger the evacuation of military dependents as a matter of high priority. Quite apart from anything else I'd expect that it would be a major morale boost for the troops based in Germany to know that their families were (relatively speaking) out of danger.

[Targan]

Personally, I think that once British and US reinforcements start arriving in West Germany in October 1996 that would trigger the evacuation of military dependents as a matter of high priority. Quite apart from anything else I'd expect that it would be a major morale boost for the troops based in Germany to know that their families were (relatively speaking) out of danger.

Agreed. Interesting you bring up the morale effects of evacuating civilian dependants as I was going to mention that too, both for this thread and for the East Germany thread.

[jester]

I know the U.S. tends to do everything possible to remove dependants from areas when threats rise.

Usualy it is a warning from the state department, then it is restricted period.

Then they send in ships and aircraft to remove them.

We did it with Kuwait and Iraq in 90/91 and we did it in Beruit/Lebanon in what, 08 Where the folks were at the airport but couldn't get out, so they sent in the navy and Marines to helo them to ships where they were taken to another destination where they could get out.

As for personel, yes the military does have personel assigned for such a task. Some are key civilians who would not be evacuated or be one of the last to go. I recently applied for such a position oversees where that was part of the duties, to coordinate with the dependants and the comand.

Lets not forget that bases have the base personel and what we call "tenants" The base personel are assigned to the base, these are your cooks for the main mess hall, the MPs assigened to the base, the electricians and construction personel who conduct daily maintenance, the com. and weather and MWR personel, initialy all of these folks would remain at their base since they would not belong to the units going into action.

And it would be these personel and the <civilian position> dependant readiness coordinator and his military oposite number an adjudant on the base comanders staff most likely who would coordinate this with the logistics side of the house at whatever port of entry/exit they would be using. At which time they would contact the base motorpool or contract with a civilian entity for transportation, a special train, a convoy of buses either military or a civilian bus line and they would be shuttled to the airport or seaport or train station where they would be embarked.

Civilians not in the DOD would be dealing with the state Department and embassy/consul, they would be given warnings, have to register, have communication assets to the point of a daily check in. And if the call comes they go or they may have part of the Marine Det come and get them, or they will be left on their own.

At which point they would be evacuated with other personel, either civilians, or even with the embassy staff via some of the methods already discussed. Usualy this will occur before things get to nasty, we have been kinda sensitive since Iran. And alot of our embassys now are what we call "turn key" meaning they are open and closed like a regular buisness and no staff remain on the grounds other than local guards.

Other citizens who are not part of DOD, would most likely be left in the hands of the State Dept and the Red Cross and a few attempts would be made to extricate them, either meet at Airfeild X and a C-130 or Helos will pick you and everyone else up, or to the city Y and a ship will pick you up and again take you to a safe place. Others will be instructed to go to the train station and go to the nearest nuetral country where they will then make their way home. And some will be told "YOU WERE WARNED! YOU DID NOT LISTEN! !!! GOOD LUCK! YOUR ON YOUR OWN!"

[Abbott Shaull]

Okay in the v2 the war was between Germany and Poland. v1 was more of unification of Germany at which the 'Unified/West' German Command attacked the Soviet units in East Germany, with the East German military units either attacking under the West German Command or they simply stayed in barracks waiting....

Besides that yes NATO troop didn't help Germany until they asked for help due to the fact that all NATO allies agreed that Germans had initiated the conflict in both versions. Thus why many of the allies refused and left NATO when the US, UK and Canadian troop came to the Germany aid.

Yes, once troop were brought in from the US, at the very least military dependents who were in Germany and elsewhere would be evacuated.

As for airspace over Germany in v1. Regardless who started the shooting and what not. Once Pact Air Force units cross the IGB allied ADA and Air Force units would have the right to protect themselves. They also at the time once a Pact aircraft crossed into West Germany would have to do to the best of their ability for nothing else to ensure their assets don't take damage due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

One has to remember during the cold war there were several cases, "classified" in which aircraft would crash with in varied regularity on both side of the IGB of Germany and the DMZ of Korea. All of them had equipment malfunctions, which was induced after pilots were play chicken with their opposing number and someone told a pilot to blink.... Or result of one or the other side pilot wonder over the border by accident...

The Soviet Air Force would be hitting West German Air Bases hard core. At the time Soviet and Pact units wouldn't care who brought down their aircraft over West Germany. They could live with the fact that some were lost to allied units, as long as the allies didn't actively take part in military operation in East Germany. Much like during Korea War and Vietnam war in which the Soviets had lost pilots. In many cases, the West knew that many of the aircrafts that they down were piloted by Soviets, but over looked the issue so as not invoke things.

The Germans at war with the Soviet and Pact forces, I don't see what would stop them from intentionally targeting some allied units. We all know there is always some avoidable collateral damage that will take place. The Soviets and Pact would make the claim it happens in hopes that allies stay out of the fighting, and with US and UK sending reinforcement to Europe, they would to send a message not to get too involved. Simply by sending troops to Europe during this time could be considered an act of war or at least showing intention that you will be a bystander for too much longer...

Like I state the NATO allies in West Germany would be mix response. Some would be willing spectators who after they had units who been unintentional hit by the Pact Forces who would become more proactive. While other wouldn't wait, their commanders would be willing to ensure they weren't harmed.

[Bladerunner]

NATO obligations

One point concerning the NATO obligations would be the Soviet invasion of Norway -- if it did occur in November (I think I read that in this thread), prior to the US, UK, etc ... entry into East Germany, wouldn't NATO as a whole be obligated to attack the USSR (Norway being a member of NATO). France was still in NATO at the time, correct

[Legbreaker]

I'm not 100% sure on V1.0 but 2.x has Germany moving eastwards months before the Soviets entered Norway, months before they even entered the war in a signicant way actually (only three Soviet Divisions plus air units were in Poland this early on). The Pact forces as a whole were outnumbered and outmatched up until the Czechs entered the fray in support of Poland.

Essentially, the European war commenced with Germany as the agressors. NATO entry into the hostilities was therefore by no means certain and it is my belief that this one fact explains most of the reasons France (and others) withdrew from the organisation.

Edit: See post #31 this thread for more detail on timings.

[natehale1971]

In our campaign, US and British dependents were sent home as soon as they where put on alert when the Sino-Soviet War started. And once the alert was lowered, they were returned back to their homes in West Germany. Thus when the West Germans went into the DDR to support their cousins declaration that they were leaving the Warsaw Pact from any attempts by the Soviets to pull another Black Winter, or the other half-dozen other anti-soviet uprisings over the past 60 years they was not as big of a move to evacutation of the the dependents... namely because it was felt that the Soviets would take the hint and not try for a two front war...

But as we all know that was a HUGE mistake. The Soviets were not about to allow the DDR (or any of the other Warsaw Pact states for that matter) to go willingly. That they NEEDED the E.Germans as part of their little party. Not only because of the strategic position of being right in the centre of Europe... but they FEARED a unified German state being strong enough to fight them (and they still are for that matter).

In our campaign the dependents were shifted around and gotten out of the theater on any available plane or boat that was heading back to the US, and when they couldn't be evacuated back to the States they were evacuated to the UK and to a neutral states such as Ireland. From there they would be placed on transports flying the flags of the various neutral powers to get back to the USA.

Of course this didnt really work out the way they had it planned... and the reason why in my version of 2300ad the British Army has the Royal American Rifles and Royal German Legion as to semi-independent corps fighting for them... but that is a story for another time.

[Rainbow Six]

Essentially, the European war commenced with Germany as the agressors. NATO entry into the hostilities was therefore by no means certain and it is my belief that this one fact explains most of the reasons France (and others) withdrew from the organisation.

Totally agree. I think the fact that the West Germans started the European War (regardless of whether one follows v1 or v2.x) would be used as an excuse to stay out of the fighting by any NATO government that wished to do so, regardless of whether that fighting was in Norway or Germany.

[Legbreaker]

I think that as long as the fighting was restricted to Germany and Poland, there's certainly good excuses for the other NATO nations to sit it out. The moment another NATO member's border was crossed by PACT forces, then the alliances all kick in.
While France certainly had reason to stay out of the German part of the battlefield, they possibly should have done something about the invasion of Norway. Mind you, I think they'd already pulled out of NATO by the time the Soviets launched their northern offensive...

[Rainbow Six]

Leg, I agree that under the NATO philosophy that an attack on one is an attack on all, the French (and the Belgians, Italians, Spanish, Portugese, etc etc) should all have responded to the attack on Norway .

However, my thinking is that in the world of realpolitik the West German invasion of the East gave those Governments that wanted to shirk their responsibilities an excuse to do so (a weak excuse in my opinion, but an excuse nonetheless).

I'm not sure when the French pulled out...I think I remember a quote somewhere (most likely the v1 ref's manual) that says some countries remain in NATO around the end of 96 / start of 97 but have not taken part in the War, but it's been a while since I read that book, so I might be wrong and in any event I don't think it specifically referred to the French.