Italy in T2K

[RN7]

Raellus just try and follow my logic in regards to your logic over Italy without getting offended. I'm really not trying to be smart or offensive.

In the paradigm of realpolitik, leaving NATO to join the WTO does not necessarily indicate an Italian desire to immediately enter into a shooting war with the U.S.A.

Italy leaves NATO after NATO forces cross the Inter-German border and begin combat operations against Warsaw Pact forces in East Germany and other WP states. Italy then joins the WP which is at war with NATO. If Italy has no desire to enter a shooting war with the U.S.A why did it not just remain neutral That's what France did.

Neither does aligning with the WTO indicate a radical ideological shift. It serves a more practical purpose.

If changing its allegiance from an alliance of democratic states to that of a group of communist states dominated by the Soviet Union doesn't indicate a radical ideological shift then I don't know what does.

If canon's description of Italy's military operations is any indication, their interests were much more localized; Italy spends most of the war attempting to annex nearby territory (mostly from Austria).

I think Italy's military operations were localised due to the fact that this would be all that its forces could manage. Italy did not have the military capabilities of other major European powers such as Britain and France who had much stronger air and naval forces, or the sheer fire power of the German Army. And if Italy spends most of the war attempting to annex nearby territory what does that tell us about the motivations of the Italian government

Joining the WTO doesn't necessarily indicate an ideological realignment, rather it can be seen as an Italian ploy to secure protection from potential NATO reprisals for local land grabs by putting Italy under the U.S.S.R. nuclear umbrella..

So Italy leaves NATO after nearly 50 years and severs relations with most of its closest allies and trade partners so that it can grab the Alpine passes from Austria. And when you head north through the Alpine Passes its leads to were The German speaking regions of Europe who would be perfectly content to let Italy steal territory from other ethnic Germans, and particularly the German military who has just reunified Germany and kicked the Soviets out of Germany.

And Italy replaces the nuclear protection of NATO with that of the Soviet Union to make a land grab. Well I can see a little logic in that, but it doesn't make me think that Italy intends to remain neutral if it wants to annex other countries territories. Also what does Italy think NATO is really going to do Italy has a very long and exposed coastline. The US Navy Sixth Fleet in the Med alone could probably wipe out the Italian Air Force and Navy by itself if it was ordered to.

Therefore, I think that Italy would have allowed the evacuation of "joint" nukes instead of aggressively trying to nationalize them and defend them by force. They lose more than they gain by trying to seize/maintain control of American nukes. As a WTO, a nuclear deterrent already exists.

I don't think I would trust the Italian government to do that, at least not the type of Italian government that you have implied has taken over Italy.

[Louied]

Gladio

I was never been a fan of this part of canon, at the very least wouldn't Italy have descended into civil war upon an exit from NATO and belligerency against their former allies From what I have read wouldn't Gladio been triggered in Italy and possibly CIA/MI6 involvement with the Mafia as in World War 2

Just some thoughts.

[James Langham2]

The whole thing sounds as unlikely as Poland being in NATO would have in 1989... :-)

[Rainbow Six]

According to GDW Italy left NATO in T2K, joined the Warsaw Pact and then went to war against NATO.

Where is it explicitly stated that Italy actually joins the Warsaw Pact Having reread the various timelines all I can come up with is the following (I'm quoting from V1 but as far as I can tell the other versions are identical):

Late 1996

While the political leadership of the European members of NATO debated the prudence of intervention, the U.S. Army crossed the frontier. Within a week, France, Belgium, Italy, and Greece first demanded that U.S. troops withdraw to their start line and then withdrew from NATO in protest.

February 1997

In late February, the socialist governments of Italy and Greece concluded a mutual defense pact. While Italy was not obligated by the pact to enter the Greco-Turkish war, the Italian government declared the war to be a regional conflict unrelated to the more general war raging elsewhere, promising to intervene on Greece's side if NATO tried to tip the balance in Turkey's favor

So, Italy agrees a mutual defence pact with Greece - no mention of joining the Warsaw Pact. That then leads to the following in June 1997:

On June 27th, a NATO convoy of fast transports and cargo ships, accompanied by a strong covering force, attempted the run to the Turkish port of Izmir with badly needed ammunition and equipment. Light fleet elements of the Greek navy intercepted the convoy and, in a confused night action off Izmir, inflicted substantial losses and escaped virtually unharmed. Two days later NATO retaliated with air strikes against Greek naval bases. On July 1st, Greece declared war against the NATO nations, and Italy, in compliance with her treaty obligations, followed suit on the 2nd.

So Italy appears to have become involved in the War (officially at least) as a result of honouring its treaty obligation with Greece, a treaty that is purely bilateral. Yes, that means it was fighting against NATO forces, so was on the same side as the Warsaw Pact but I can't see any reference to it formally joining the Warsaw Pact. You can argue the logic of Italian actions in getting involved in a War with their former allies back and forth but it doesn't appear to have had anything to do with membership of the Warsaw Pact. What you do have is a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If you apply that logic to say that Italy must have joined the Warsaw Pact then by definition China must have joined NATO.

Going Home SB states that the Italian Folgore Mechanised Division is acting as anti-Soviet partisans in Austria, and that its commander had long opposed socialist coalition which has ruled Italy in recent years, and has always despised the Warsaw Pact and regretted Italy's involvement with it.

Involvement with something doesn't automatically imply membership of it. Or am I missing something I'm not trying to be smart either, it's a serious question. I've spent a fair bit of time looking and can't find any reference in canon that states that Italy actually becomes a member of the Warsaw Pact.

Mediterranean Cruise SB states that after the US entered the war in 1996, Italy's government demanded that American troops return to their start lines, then withdrew from NATO when this was not forthcoming. Military bases in Italy were closed to the belligerents, but Italy tried to remain neutral in the greater conflict. In 1997 NATO aid to Turkey brought Italy into the war, in accordance to its treaty obligations (Warsaw Pact) on July 1st 1997.

As Italy didn't enter the War until the start of July 1997 this suggests to me that there was a six month period during which Italy did indeed remain neutral and US bases could be peacefully evacuated. I'd suggest that both sides would want the nukes to be the first thing to go - the Americans because they want to get them somewhere secure in case anyone does make a grab for them and the Italians because they would think the nukes were a possible target for Soviet nukes.

Anything going out by sea would probably have to head for the United Kingdom given that French and Spanish ports would presumably be closed. Anything going out by air could go to Germany (presuming the Italians agree to overflight rights - frankly I don't see that being a problem for the reason stated above, i.e that the Italians would want anything that's a possible target out of their territory asap).

I don't know if the Soviets would have nuked Rome. Although it is the Italian capital its not as economically important as say Milan, and Naples would be a bigger military target. More importantly Rome is a major world cultural centre and is the spiritual home of the Roman Catholic Church. There are a lot of Catholics among the Soviet Union's allies in Latin America and Africa, and also within the Warsaw Pact in Europe; Poland and quite a few in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and even East Germany.

With regards to the nuking of Rome, we have this in 1998

As the autumnal rains began, NATO and the Pact initiated a short and weak second nuclear exchange, directed primarily at surviving industrial centers in the United Kingdom and Italy.

The primary targets were the UK and Italy. I would have thought that the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that is that the Soviets nuked the UK and the US (or UK) nuked Italy. The only other possibility is an elaborate ploy by one side to try and blame the other.

[Raellus]

The whole thing sounds as unlikely as Poland being in NATO would have in 1989... :-)

Good point!

@RN7: I'm not offended. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater- I'm just trying to figure out a way to justify and work with canon instead of tossing out major pieces that don't seem to fit. It can be a bit of stretch, I admit, but, IRL, stranger things have happened.

A couple of things to keep in mind.

Italy has a long and illustrious history of switching sides during World Wars.

Italy had strong and sometimes successful leftist parties during the Cold War. It certainly casts things in a more complex light.

@Rainbow Six: Thanks for doing the research and posting those excerpts.

[rcaf_777]

As far as I knew NATO has a nuclear sharing plan, while almost all details are classified I was able to find this open source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

The first paragraph deals with NATO, it says that in peacetime the weapons are under custody and control of USAF Munitions Support Squadrons co-located on NATO main operating bases who work together with the host nation forces

Here is a list of the USAF Munitions Support Squadrons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Air_Force_munitions_squadrons

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/agency/usafe-munss.htm

Although not found on the list RAF Welford is the largest ammunition compounds for the United States Air Force in Western Europe for heavy munitions. It home to the 420 Munitions Squadron, this base might serve as addition storage for weapons.

Now the paragraph dose mention that in war time the weapons would be moved and mounted on the applicable delivery systems. Now since the war did not go nuclear right away. These weapons would might be kept in storage as an add safety measure against possible Soviet Spetsnaz attack.

I wonder if any weapons would be left as they were all tactical weapons and the timeline mentions, tactical then ICBM were used.

It would fun adventure though for a group of PC's. A convoy of vehicles traveling to a site to recover weapons and return to Bremerhaven

[RN7]

One of the issues I have always had with GDW's rendering of Twilight 2000 is the sometimes paucity of detail, or the omission of information which should have been included. Italy is a prime example of this. A major European power yet the details of its involvement in T2K are limited to say the least.

Where is it explicitly stated that Italy actually joins the Warsaw Pact Having reread the various timelines all I can come up with is the following (I'm quoting from V1 but as far as I can tell the other versions are identical):

It doesn't explicitly state that Italy joined the Warsaw Pact anywhere. I like you Rainbow Six have been looking through the books to find it and I can't.

From various books to be brief...

" After the US entered the war in 1996, Italy's government demanded that American troops return to their start lines, then withdrew from NATO when this was not forthcoming. Military bases in Italy were closed to the belligerents, but Italy tried to remain neutral in the greater conflict".

"In late February, the socialist governments of Italy and Greece concluded a mutual defense pact. While Italy was not obligated by the pact to enter the Greco-Turkish war, the Italian government declared the war to be a regional conflict unrelated to the more general war raging elsewhere, promising to intervene on Greece's side if NATO tried to tip the balance in Turkey's favor".

" On June 27th, a NATO convoy of fast transports and cargo ships, accompanied by a strong covering force, attempted the run to the Turkish port of Izmir with badly-needed ammunition and equipment. Light fleet elements of the Greek navy intercepted the convoy and, in a confused night action off Izmir, inflicted substantial losses and escaped virtually unharmed. Two days later NATO retaliated with air strikes against Greek naval bases. On July 1st, Greece declared war against the NATO nations, and Italy, in compliance with her treaty obligations, followed suit on the 2nd."


Straightforward you might think, but then by looking in more detail we have contradictions like these...

Mediterranean Cruise page 14 " When Great Britain entered the war, Gibraltar became important once again. With France opting out and Italy openly hostile, Gibraltar was the only friendly base in the Western Mediterranean that NATO had. When Spain closed the American base at Rota, Gibraltar became home of a sizeable portion of the American Atlantic fleet as well. Gibraltar was the base from which NATO launched the convoy in support of Turkey in June 1997, and was the base from which the carriers operated when retaliatory air strikes were launched against Greece after that convoy was attacked off Izmir. With the entry of Greece and Italy into the war against NATO, Gibraltar became the most important NATO base in the Mediterranean"

The Italians were openly hostile to NATO well before the Turkish Convoy incident.

Twilight 2000 Play Manual page 52 " In early July, Italian In early July, Italian airmobile and alpine units crossed the passes into Tyrolia. Scattered elements of the Austrian army resisted briefly but were overwhelmed. By mid-month, Italian mechanized forces were debouching from the Alpine passes into southern Germany, and their advanced elements were in combat against German territorial troops in the suburbs of Munich."

The Italians invade neutral Austria and then Germany. What has that got to do with its treaty obligations to Greece, and why would they do that if they were not part of the Warsaw Pact

NATO CVHB page 92 " On 7 January 1997, the Dutch 4th Mechanised Division was ordered into Germany to help fight the Warsaw Pact. The division performed well against the V Italian Corps in southern Germany in the summer of 1997".

The Italian V Corps is fighting with the Warsaw Pact in Germany.

NATO CVHB page 90 " During the NATO spring offensive in 1997, the 5th Pazer Division was part of the reserve force. It was sent to southern Germany, where it engaged units of the V Italian Corps".

" In the summer of 1997, the division was withdrawn from Poland and sent southward. In the space of 11 days, the 10th Panzer Division withdrew from Poland and moved into southern Germany, where it engaged the Italian Ariete Armored Division in the vicinity of Augsburg".

The Italians are fighting the Germans in Germany

Going Home page 17 " the Folgore Division has been operating as anti-Soviet partisans since the disintegration of the Pact counteroffensive over the summer. A life-long Christian-Democrat, and long opposed to the socialist coalition which has ruled Italy in recent years, Falvi has always despised the Warsaw Pact, and regretted Italy's involvement with it".

An Italian commander who has declared his division for NATO despises and regrets Italy's involvement with the Warsaw Pact.

Going Home page 15-16 also lists the 5th Italian Corps and its three divisions (less the Folgore Mechanised Division) as part of Warsaw Pact forces in Czechoslovakia and Southern Germany, specifically placing it under the command of the Soviet 2nd Southwestern Front in 2000. This would imply that Italian forces were places under Warsaw Pact Command at some point in the war.

As the autumnal rains began, NATO and the Pact initiated a short and weak second nuclear exchange, directed primarily at surviving industrial centers in the United Kingdom and Italy.

Is Rome specifically mentioned

[Rainbow Six]

I'm aware there are a number of quotes that refer to Italian troops fighting alongside Warsaw Pact units and some of those quotes refer to Italian units being under Warsaw Pact operational command, particularly the one in Going Home. I'm not disputing any of that.

The Italians invade neutral Austria and then Germany. What has that got to do with its treaty obligations to Greece, and why would they do that if they were not part of the Warsaw Pact

As I said earlier you can debate the logic (and wisdom) of the Italians' choices after they enter the War. However simply having Italian forces fighting alongside Pact troops as allies or even being under Pact operational command does not automatically equate to Italy formally joining the Warsaw Pact. If it suits individual GM's to have Italy do so that's their choice. I'm simply stating the fact that there is no canon quote anywhere to confirm it, something which it seems we agree on.

Is Rome specifically mentioned

Only indirectly. The first quote I referenced referred to Venice being the only City to escape nuclear attack and then goes on to refer to Rome being rebuilt.

"The Nuova Italia movement was based in Venice, the only city to escape nuclear attack. Nevertheless, Rome remained the focus for the "idea of Italy,~ and the return of central authority to a largely rebuilt Rome In 2100 represented the climax of over a century's work."

[swaghauler]

US planning and treaties makes it very clear that under "joint control" or not, the US never looses ownership of the nuke. The US will never allow even the closest ally to gain sole control over a US nuclear weapon....simply will not happen This, in no small part, led to France leaving the NATO military command structure, as the French wanted its own control over the ultimate use of nuclear weapons rather than an American President. It is also the reason why the UK arms its Trident IIs with UK owned and designed weapons. Make no mistake, the US will go to war with an ally when it comes to trying to usurp US protocols and seize the weapons for their own use. Also, the permissive action links and protocols make it impossible for an ally to use the weapon without the necessary codes. While I have no actual knowledge of this, given classified protocols I did know about, I always doubted the PAL codes were available at an overseas base and the codes would only be communicated to the base after war broke out. Remember, we maintain weapons (admitted or not) in countries with varying degrees of stability, and we historically had weapons in countries that have had coups (South Korea, Libya, Turkey, etc), so security of the weapons in the context of attempted military seizure have been planned for.

When I was in Special Weapons, we spent half our time training for the destruction of those rounds so they (and us) wouldn't fall into enemy hands (due to the "forward deployment" of tube-launched nuclear weapons on the battlefield). We would mount the fuse on the weapon and put a special "shaped charge" over them that, when detonated, would destroy the fuse, weapon, and ALL equipment and manuals in the section. This would also turn the area into a MAJOR HAZMAT SITE for about 20,000 years. EVERYONE in Special Weapons was REQUIRED to pass this DEM/EOD procedure each year to even be in Special Weapons. In fact, my exceptional performance in this area is what led to me being given the chance to take a more "involved" demolitions course. Man did I LOVE blowing S**T up. I miss that as much as firing the "Big Guns" (and yes, they are GUNS... as in crew served weapons...NOT male body parts like the Drill Sergeant taught all you 11bravos).

If we had PALS and the Authorization, things would get REALLY interesting as the attackers (and ALL of the Special Weapons) disappeared "in a blinding flash of light." This is, of course, the method of "last resort."

[RN7]

As I said earlier you can debate the logic (and wisdom) of the Italians' choices after they enter the War.

Italian politicians in T2K are obviously as responsible as they are in real life!

However simply having Italian forces fighting alongside Pact troops as allies or even being under Pact operational command does not automatically equate to Italy formally joining the Warsaw Pact.

But I do think that NATO would still equate Italy as being allied with the Warsaw Pact and would treat its forces accordingly.

If it suits individual GM's to have Italy do so that's their choice. I'm simply stating the fact that there is no canon quote anywhere to confirm it, something which it seems we agree on.

GDW for some unknown reason never states that Italy joined or did not join the Warsaw Pact, so all we can do is go along with what canon facts we have

* Italy leaves NATO when other NATO forces cross the inter-German border.
* Italy is now hostile to NATO, at least NATO seems to think that.
* Greece (ex-NATO) goes to war with Turkey (NATO) in January 1997 after the Turks invade Cyprus.
* Italy signs a mutual defence treaty with Greece in February 1997.
* Greece fights with Warsaw Pact armies against the Turks in the Balkans through the Spring of 1997
* Greek pressure on Turkish forces in Thrace causes major problems for over extended Turkish forces by May 1997.
* A NATO convoy to aid the Turks is intercepted and badly mauled by the Greek Navy in June 1997.
* NATO retaliatory air strikes against Greece leads to Italy fulfilling her treaty obligations to Greece by July 2nd 1997.
* In early July Italian forces invade Austria.
* By mid-July Italian forces begin to invade Southern Germany
* Afterwards numerous references to Italian forces fighting with Warsaw Pact armies in Central Europe.

So your own conclusion to that would be whatever suits your game.

Only indirectly. The first quote I referenced referred to Venice being the only City to escape nuclear attack and then goes on to refer to Rome being rebuilt.

We know that Italy was nuked, although I don't think canon states who actually nuked it. I don't think Rome was nuked for the same reason that Mecca or Jerusalem were not. But if it was I'm not really that bothered by the fact.

BTW does anyone know how many divisions the Italian Army had in T2K In real life the Italian Army was reorganised between 1975 and 1986 and all of its divisions were dissolved and replaced by brigades and regiments assigned to corps. This obviously did not happen in T2K or was reversed. Going Home lists the Ariete Armoured Division, the Folgore Mechanised Division and Mantova Mechanised Division. Were there any more

[RN7]

I think GDW used the pre-1986 structure of the Italian Army. This covers all the divisions listed in Going Home and units elsewhere.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Italy_Army_-_1984.png

Italian land forces

Army: 260,000 (207,000 conscripts)
Army Reserves: 520,000
Marines (Navy): 800
Carabinieri: 111,400
Public Security Guard: 80,400
Finance Guard: 53,000
State Police: 70,000

Equipment

Tanks: 1,533
Leopard 1A1: 200
Leopard 1A2: 720
M60A1: 300
M47: 313

AFV: 4,937
Centauro B1: 6
M113 w/TOW: 270
Fiat 6614 APC: 102 (88 Paramilitary)
LVTP-7 APC: 25 (10 Marines)
M113 APC: 2,335 (119 Paramilitary)
M548 APC: 211
M577 APC: 199
VCC-1/2 APC: 1,789 (30 Marines, 92 Paramilitary)

Artillery: 2,160
SP 203mm M110A2: 23
SP 175mm M107: 18
SP 155mm M109G/L: 260
SP 155mm M44: 108
Towed 203mm M115: 36
Towed 155mm FH-70: 164
Towed 155mm M59: 36
Towed 155mm M114: 423
Towed 105mm M56: 357
MRL 227mm MLRS: 2
MRL 122mm FIROS-30: 7
SP 120mm Mortar M106: 445 (24 Paramilitary)
120mm Mortar M20: 281

Surface to Surface Missiles: 6
Lance: 6 (up to 100 missiles)

ATGM Launchers: 1,432
Milan: 1,000 (6 Marines)
TOW: 432 (including vehicles)

Air Defence Guns: 410
SP 25mm SIDAM: 50
Towed 12.7mm M55: 108
Towed 40mm L70: 252

Surface to Air Missiles: 246
Aspide: 24 (24 Air Force)
I-Hawk: 126
Nike Hercules: 96 (96 Air Force)

Army Aviation: 576
Cessna O-1E Liaison Aircraft: 12
P-64B Liaison Aircraft: 3 (3 Paramilitary)
P-68 Liaison Aircraft: 5 (5 Paramilitary)
SM-1019 Liaison Aircraft: 48
A-129 Attack Helicopter: 6 (54 more on order)
CH-47C Transport Helicopter: 30
A-109 Utility Transport Helicopter: 66 (47 Paramilitary)
AB-205A/B Utility Transport Helicopter: 97 (5 Paramilitary)
AB-212 Utility Transport Helicopter: 18
AB-412 Utility Transport Helicopter: 35 (18 Paramilitary)
AB-206 Light Helicopter: 166 (40 Paramilitary)
Bell 47 Light Helicopter: 22
NH-500C/D/E: 68 (68 Paramilitary)

[pmulcahy11b]

Wasn't the AMF stationed in Italy

[mpipes]

If we had PALS and the Authorization, things would get REALLY interesting as the attackers (and ALL of the Special Weapons) disappeared "in a blinding flash of light." This is, of course, the method of "last resort."

He said it first...but yea...the weapon will NOT be compromised.

[Rainbow Six]

Wasn't the AMF stationed in Italy

AFAIK its HQ was in Germany and I think in most cases individual units were stationed in their respective countries but regularly deployed to the various operational areas (which included Italy) on exercise (the US Airborne Battalion being an exception as they were stationed in Italy).

I acquired this pdf at one point which has a detailed breakdown of component units (no clue who the original author is).

[Louied]

AFAIK its HQ was in Germany and I think in most cases individual units were stationed in their respective countries but regularly deployed to the various operational areas (which included Italy) on exercise (the US Airborne Battalion being an exception as they were stationed in Italy).

I acquired this pdf at one point which has a detailed breakdown of component units (no clue who the original author is).

Rainbow


The author is me ! It's still a work in progress though.