A Looter's Guide to the US, 2005

[TKalbfus]

PBI said,

According to canon, not only did the US respond differently, so did everyone else. Nukes were used quite happily on the battlefield and against military and industrial targets but there was no widespread deliberate targetting of cities. Also, the US military was effectively in charge of any remaining nukes and soldiers, as a rule, tend to be far less gung-ho about nukes than politicians, so I doubt the US would have nuked any Mexican cities unless the Mexicans nuked a US target first.

The only problem is that Mexico can't nuke any US cities as they don't have any nuclear weapons.

That is unless Mexico became a nuclear power in the Twilight 2000 timeline.

As far as I know Mexico has no nuclear weapons. I just have trouble imagining either the military of the civilian government saying to Mexico, "Go ahead, help youself to a piece of us." I think in peacetime if Mexico tried that now, they would meet with our conventional forces, and who knows we might just decide to annex the rest of Mexico, though I think that would prove to be more trouble than its worth. We would most likely occupy Mexico for a time and set up elections and leave. Occupying a piece of the US woul prove to be most troublesome for the Mexican government, a state that should be patting itself on the head for staying out of World War III would instead be incurring casualities trying to occupy a piece of the US. Not all American citizens would be completely passive and docile under Mexican rule. Some Mexicans would come back in bodybags and the Mexican politicians would have to explain why they are there. Mexico's defense budget would have to go up, and exports would be way down, the economy, to say the least, would be in trouble and Mexicans would want to know what they are there for? Some would no doubt say, "Ha ha, we got our land back!" but no doubt those aren't the people who put on the Uniform and deal with Americans under occupation and all the looks of hate they get as they perform their duty. Americans probably won't blow themselves up, but they are quite clever and educated and probably set up alot of nasty booby traps for the Mexican soldiers. The Southwest can become much worse than a Mexican Vietnam. Somehow the Mexicans have to win "Hearts and Minds" perhaps by rebuilding infrastructure, but that can't be cheap for a third world country like Mexico. The alternative is to rule with an "iron fist". Mexico is a democracy, so ruling with an "iron fist" will alarm some democrats in Mexico who reason that if Americans can be ruled with an "iron fist" so too could Mexican citizens. And there are the everypresent communist guerillas in the hills that could be used as an excuse.

 

[TKalbfus]

PBI said,

I understand your desire to have ther US treated more kindly in the setting; I have the same desire with regards to Canada and I imagine most people from other countries would want their nation to come out looking a lot better, too. It would certainly be emotionally satisfying, but would make for a poor post-Apocalyptic RPG.

Unfortunately in a setting like this, some people have to be Bad guys (i.e. The Russians), some people have to be victims (i.e. The US), some people have to be cowards (i.e. The French), and some people have to be backstabbers (i.e. the Mexicans), some Rebels (The New Americans) and so forth. Now who would Americans dispise the most? The Russians are supposed to be our enemies, that's expected due to their government and their ideology, they Mexicans on the other hand weren't supposed to be our enemies, that should come as a surprise to most Americans. We were trying to save the free world after all, and how do the Mexicans thank us, by invasion? Hispanics people are going to have a big problem in the US as they may be mistaken for Mexicans.

 

[PBI]

Tom, when I spoke of Mexican cities not being nuked by the US unless Mexico nuked a US city first, I know Mexico doesn't have nukes. That's the whole point. That's the reason why no Mexican cities would be nuked.

 

[PBI]

Uh, Tom, the US wasn't trying to save the free world in the T2K timeline. If anything, the US joined in an unprovoked war of agression started by certain elements within Germany (as did the UK and Canada).

As to your point about it being "unfortunate" that there have to be bad guys, well, yeah, that's what I was saying. There do have to be bad guys, but, more importantly, in a setting like T2K, though it's tempting to have one's real nation be exempted from the harshest treatment, it also would ruin the game.

 

[Drakich]

Originally posted by PBI:
Tom, when I spoke of Mexican cities not being nuked by the US unless Mexico nuked a US city first, I know Mexico doesn't have nukes. That's the whole point. That's the reason why no Mexican cities would be nuked.

It's also bad logic. Not having nuclear weapons didn't prevent a whole plethora of nations from getting nuked by the US and NATO. Once Mexico established itself as a party to the war, they would get nuked just like Italy and Greece got nuked and neither country had nukes. There goes that theory.

 

[TKalbfus]

PBI said,

Uh, Tom, the US wasn't trying to save the free world in the T2K timeline. If anything, the US joined in an unprovoked war of agression started by certain elements within Germany (as did the UK and Canada).

No? Then what was American troops doing in Europe selflessly defending democracy when it could have been at home defending itself against Mexican invasion. Germany was trying to take back what belonged to it, namely East Germany, and the Germans were also trying to rescue the rest of Central and Eastern Europe from Soviet (Russian) domination. This is very uncharacteristic of what we now know about Germany, but perhaps this was because Christian Democrats were in power instead of Social Democrats or Greens. the Americans were trying to roll back Soviet communism and made an error in judgement on what they could get away with. That's what I remember anyway. Of course I no longer have the material in front of me and perhaps I remember it incorrectly. Perhaps the source says, they Americans really wanted to enslave the Eastern European population and bring them to America so they can pick cotton on plantations but I doubt it.

Basically, the US was being a team player and a NATO alliance member and some other NATO allies were not. The Mexicans for one did not seem appreciative that US soldiers were fighting for their freedom and decided that for once that America's back was turn on them, now would be a good time to stab it. This is kind of like the defense of the Ghetto kid who stole a diamond necklace, "I had to steal it, she was flaunting the necklace too visiably and it was too good an opportunity to pass up!"

As to your point about it being "unfortunate" that there have to be bad guys, well, yeah, that's what I was saying. There do have to be bad guys, but, more importantly, in a setting like T2K, though it's tempting to have one's real nation be exempted from the harshest treatment, it also would ruin the game.

Point well taken. How would you like to play a Swiss soldier in Twilight 2000. I think Switzerland stayed neutral as it always does. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Switzerland stayed out of the Twilight war and was not nuked and better yet did not attack anybody. I think the Soviet Red Army like the German Nazi Army of the previous World War felt that Switzerland was too small to bother with. I imagine many of the looters have swiss bank accounts. By the way, how would a PC open up a Swiss bank account if they have accumulated alot of loot and wish to sell it? I imagine the Swiss would let just anybody within their borders. Switzerland could probably turn into a market for selling stolen loot and turning it into hard Swiss currency. A PCs wealth would probably be better kept in a Swiss bank than on his person.

 

[PBI]

No, Drakich, there it doesn't go. I was referring to whole-scale nuking of population centres for the sake of nuking population centres. Nowhere in the timeline was it stated that cities were deliberately targetted, unless there were significant industrial and/or command and control facilities nearby or co-located. There are lots of targets missing from the strike list in both the US and the USSR that should have been hit, had full-scale nuclear attacks been made. So, yes, my logic holds.

 

[PBI]

Originally posted by Tom Kalbfus:
PBI said, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Uh, Tom, the US wasn't trying to save the free world in the T2K timeline. If anything, the US joined in an unprovoked war of agression started by certain elements within Germany (as did the UK and Canada).

No? Then what was American troops doing in Europe selflessly defending democracy when it could have been at home defending itself against Mexican invasion. Germany was trying to take back what belonged to it, namely East Germany,

I see the problem now; you're talking about the 1st timeline, I'm talking about the 2nd. In the 2nd timeline (the updated version), certain elements within Germany created a thin pretext for going to war with Poland and only after their attack was stalled, then thrown back did the US, British, and Canadian armies rumble forward, a decision that was, at best, iffy. Yes, it was true that the Warsaw Pact had stated its intention to re-partition Germany, so that was an argument for joining in on the Germans' side, but the other, equally vaild, argument was that there wouldn't be any war if the Germans hadn't started it in the first place and thus NATO split pretty much down the middle.

I ask you, how were the US/UK/Cdn troops in any way defending democracy? At best, the decision to join in the fighting was more about treaty obligations than anything else and because of the circumstances, even that was a very very thin justification.

As to your point about it being "unfortunate" that there have to be bad guys, well, yeah, that's what I was saying. There do have to be bad guys, but, more importantly, in a setting like T2K, though it's tempting to have one's real nation be exempted from the harshest treatment, it also would ruin the game.

Point well taken. How would you like to play a Swiss soldier in Twilight 2000. I think Switzerland stayed neutral as it always does. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Switzerland stayed out of the Twilight war and was not nuked and better yet did not attack anybody. I think the Soviet Red Army like the German Nazi Army of the previous World War felt that Switzerland was too small to bother with. I imagine many of the looters have swiss bank accounts. By the way, how would a PC open up a Swiss bank account if they have accumulated alot of loot and wish to sell it? I imagine the Swiss would let just anybody within their borders. Switzerland could probably turn into a market for selling stolen loot and turning it into hard Swiss currency. A PCs wealth would probably be better kept in a Swiss bank than on his person. </font>[/QUOTE]What's your point, Tom? More importantly, what is it you think I was trying to say?

 

[TKalbfus]

PBI said,

I see the problem now; you're talking about the 1st timeline, I'm talking about the 2nd. In the 2nd timeline (the updated version), certain elements within Germany created a thin pretext for going to war with Poland and only after their attack was stalled, then thrown back did the US, British, and Canadian armies rumble forward, a decision that was, at best, iffy. Yes, it was true that the Warsaw Pact had stated its intention to re-partition Germany, so that was an argument for joining in on the Germans' side, but the other, equally vaild, argument was that there wouldn't be any war if the Germans hadn't started it in the first place and thus NATO split pretty much down the middle.

The Warsaw Pact was just a Puppet of Soviet Russia. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact was an empire held together by force. Saying that the Warsaw Pact wanted to re-partition Germany is equivalent of saying that my right hand wanted to hit somebody. The Warsaw Pact was an arm of Soviet Russia, it was Soviet Russia that wanted to re-partition Germany, but if they were going to take a piece, why not take the whole thing if they could get away with it? I never saw the later edition of Twilight 2000. I know that the Soviet Union was an empire holding in thrall an unwilling populace, some more unwilling than others. Germany was trying to liberate Poland from Soviet Domination.

 

[TKalbfus]

Admittedly, its hard to defend a fictional United States in a timeline I didn't see. I just use some logic and base it on a set of assumptions on each country involved based on what I know from the last years of the Cold War. I assume that the timelines of Twilight 2000 and our own history are identical up to the Soviet Coup attempt. the first moves of the Soviet Coup was to depose Mikail Gorbachev as President of the Soviet Union. The years following the coup attempt would have run differently in the Twilight 2000 timeline. Germany was reunited before the coup attempt so that remains the same as in our timeline. I suppose we can say the the Poles tried to overthrow the Communist government and they were brutally crushed by Soviet Tanks. Soviets occupy Poland and move up to the border of Germany. The Berlin Wall comes down, and much of the aid that would have gone to help Eastern Europe instead goes to rebuild Eastern Germany. Now you say the Russians invade Germany and say they want only the eastern third of it? The Germans say, "No way, you can't have a piece of our country." and since Germany is a NATO member American tanks clash with those of the Russians and push them back. The Russian forces are pushed back across Poland and no doubt the Poles cheer them on and some of them help out in attacks against the Russians. In response there are uprisings all over Eastern Europe and the Czechs and others know the Americans are coming. the Russians panic and flee all the way to the Ukraine, but once they reach the Ukraine the Russians regroup and meet the onrushing NATO forces head on and do poorly. Even worse it looks like the Baltic countries are rebelling and in the Ukraine they are even welcoming the invading forces. The leadership of the Soviet Union would have none of it and they threaten to use nuclear weapons if the NATO forces don't pull back all the way to Western Germany. The US and NATO say, "No way!" and call the Soviet bluff, but unfortunately it was no bluff.

So is this how it goes in the second edition?

 

[PBI]

No, Tom, that's not how the latest official timeline goes at all

In brief, most things up to 92 happen as per real history, with some very notable exceptions. Poland and Hungary, more than a little concerned over the fact of a united Germany, request continued Soviet troop presence. The Germans renounce all claims to pre-WWII borders, but they also state that Germany shall continue to take an interest in the welfare of ethnic Germans living outside Germany (a form of a Germanic Fracophonie, I suppose). That gives rise to an increase in membership in German cultural organizations in Germans areas outside of Germany, particularly in western Poland, where the conversion to a Western-style economy isn't going so well (it doesn't go that smoothly elsewhere, either but western Poland is a rung or two down the Polish gov't's priority list). This is all happening in 1990, by the way.

That same year, the tensions in the USSR blow up, and the Soviets are quite happy to accelerate the troop withdrawal schedule negotiated over the reunification of Germany. 1991 sees the growing civil war within the Soviet Union escalate (trouble with the Central Asian republics), and things begin to get ugly inside the USSR. Germany decides to remain in NATO, but, as part of the general peace dividend sweeping the Western world, reduces its army considerably, as does the rest of NATO. By 1992, Germany has an army half its pre-unification size, non-German NATO troops in Germany are reduced to 5 divisions total, and what was East Germany is, by the terms of the reunification treaty, occupied only by German territorial brigades. Note, there never was a coup in the Soviet Union in the 2nd edition timeline.

Things continue in this vein for 2 more years, but with increasing instability in the Balkans. Yugo doesn't blow apart, but there's enough unrest that a lot of Balkan states have to use their armed forces to quell the dissent. Europe 92 never gets off the ground, so the build towards European unity stalls. By 1994, the Germans start to build up their army, quietly, bringing the 6 divisions in western Germany up to full strength and officially attaching one of the 6 territorial brigades in the former East Germany to each regular division. No one makes much of a stink because the Germans are still within the terms of the treaty and, besides, things really are heating up in the Balkans.

1995 sees the war kick off when border disputes and clashes between Soviet and China becomes a real shooting war. The USSR calls on its WP allies; most don't respond, but Poland and Bulgaria do. Both the Poles, and the Bulgarians, who promise a brigade if the Soviets will equip it, want to stay in the Soviet's good graces, as those nations are more afraid of the prospect of a very strong Germany (which seems to be right around the corner now that the Germans have finished bringing East Germany up to the equivalent of the rest of the country), so they send troops to the Far East. The Germans declare the troop agreement null and void in light of increasing regional instability and almost double the size of their army, including bringing the territorial brigades in eastern Germany up to weak division strength. The alarms the Poles, who begin bringing divisions on their western border to a higher state or readiness. They also protest the Germans' actions strongly, but the USSR is in no position to divert any attention westward and the rest of NATO doesn't raise a stink because the Germans are allies and, besides, if you had nations on your border start to slide into instability and/or mobilization, wouldn't it be prudent to respond?

1995 also sees things deteriorate in Bulgaria and Romania, with anti-Turkish riots in Bulgaria and suppression of Magyar protests in Romania. By June, 1996, things are not going real well on the Far East front and the Soviets start mobilizing their Cat-B divisions (and some of the Cat-Cs) and issue another call for troops to thir WP allies. Poland decides to send a second division east, but 7 ethnic Germans in the division say they intend to resist the transfer order, which touches off waves of popular protest in support among the German-speaking population in Poland. The riot police crush the protests, several ethnic Germans are killed, and Germany protests the violent nature of the crackdown. To show just how pissed they are, the Germans move several divisions closer to the Polish border.

Now, in June, 1996, a cabal of certain high-ranking German army officers and at least one cabinet member open secret talks with a number of the ethnic German cultural organizations in Poland. The result is that, when a second wave of demonstrations break out, the Polish police are met with armed resistance by folks using military small arms. Things go rapidly down hill from there, with Polish accusations and German counter-accusations until the German-Polish frontier resembles the situation in Korea or Kashmir. Towards the end of July, the III (GE) Corps crosses into Poland in response to a "full-scale attack" by the Polish 4th Motor Rifle Division.

At first, it's only Poland and Germany that are at war, but there are Soviet troops in Poland and they fight along side their allies. Things see-saw, with the Germans doing not too badly, but by November 1996, the Luftwaffe has lost most of its aircraft and things go from bad to worse (from the Germans' point of view) when the Czechs join the war and break through in the south.

That's when the Warsaw Pact announces it intends to permanently re-partition Germany. The Germans invoke their self-defence clause of the NATO treaty. NATO leadership debates whether ot not to intervene (the Germans did, after all, bring this down upon their own heads), but while they are debating, the US Army units in German cross the frontier and come to the aid of the Germans. Within a week, France, Belgium, Italy, and Greece demand the US troops return to their start line and then withdraw from NATO in protest when the US ignores the demand. The British and Canadian units in Germany march in support of the Germans and Americans while the Danes and the Dutch decide to remain in NATO, but will not engage in combat unless the WP tries to get uppity.

So now you see why, in the new timeline, I said that the US participation in the war had little to do with defending democracy.

Oh, and I need no lesons on what the nature of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact were. I spent most of my adult life in uniform fully expecting to get the opportunity to visit Germany on the war tour plan.

 

[Drakich]

Originally posted by PBI:
No, Drakich, there it doesn't go. I was referring to whole-scale nuking of population centres for the sake of nuking population centres. Nowhere in the timeline was it stated that cities were deliberately targetted, unless there were significant industrial and/or command and control facilities nearby or co-located. There are lots of targets missing from the strike list in both the US and the USSR that should have been hit, had full-scale nuclear attacks been made. So, yes, my logic holds.

The wholesale nuking of population centers (counter-value targeting) hasn't been US policy for quite some time...since around Kennedy IIRC. That didn't stop USSR cities from being heavily targeted, except now the designated ground zeroes were named "Kirov Tractor Factory Plant" rather than "Kirov".

With Mexico invading the states, there would be plenty of C3I, military, transportation, and industrial targets to hit in order to cripple the Mexican war effort. Given that the nuclear threshold had already been crossed, there would be nothing really holding back American military leaders.

 

[PBI]

Well, canon is against you. And your point about Kirov is more or less moot, because the text of the timeline does specify industrial centres related to war prudutction and the cities those were in. The problem with Mexico invading the US is that the civilian command structure was gone by then and Mexico had already been hit during the denial round of strikes.

Even if the Milgov commander wanted to launch nukes, even if any commander anywhere wanted t launch nukes, they'd have to have a working communication system and the folks that turn the keys would have to follow the order and after the strikes that had already gone in, after the general collapse of civilization, with large formations already refusing to follow orders to continue the fight, I doubt the missle types would agree to carry out such an order.

Plus, military leaders are even more reluctant to use nukes than the civvies.

 

[TKalbfus]

PBI said,

In brief, most things up to 92 happen as per real history, with some very notable exceptions. Poland and Hungary, more than a little concerned over the fact of a united Germany, request continued Soviet troop presence.

This is a little uncharacteristic of what I know about Poland. The Poles get their democracy and their elected government and the want the Soviets to occupy them again? A Catholic country wanting to join an Atheist Empire? German Nazism is ancient history compared to their more recent experience under the thumb of the Soviet Union.

The Germans renounce all claims to pre-WWII borders, but they also state that Germany shall continue to take an interest in the welfare of ethnic Germans living outside Germany (a form of a Germanic Fracophonie, I suppose). That gives rise to an increase in membership in German cultural organizations in Germans areas outside of Germany, particularly in western Poland, where the conversion to a Western-style economy isn't going so well (it doesn't go that smoothly elsewhere, either but western Poland is a rung or two down the Polish gov't's priority list). This is all happening in 1990, by the way.

You have to make the Germans out to be Nazis to make this work. The dilemma here is that if the Germans become more like the Nazis, the Americans and other NATO countries become less likely to support them. Does a form of National Socialism take over Germany? This scenario seems to be the form of the Germans taking a poke at someone and then being unprepared for the response of righteous indignation of Warsaw pact members.

So I suppose the US decides to take a "poke" at Mexico and are "shocked" when this gets the Mexicans mad at them and causes them to invade Texas with righteous indignation.

Most World War III scenarios I've heard about start with the Soviet Union invading Western Europe. In this scenario we have a mischievous US President and German Chancellor who go around stirring up trouble and then finding themselves unprepared for the consequences when trouble comes.

I suppose in a fictional timeline you can make The US do whatever you want. The only question is whether the US is likely to behave in this way. One can postulate a set of alternate histories where the US behaves very differenly from what we expect. One could even imagine a Soviet Union that is fully democratic and pluralistic and which is only defending itself against aggressive western imperialistic power, who by the way don't have very much in the way of brain power. they make a feeble attack, one just enough to get its enemies angry, then the US's enemies take the US apart in righteous fury and the feeble US barely puts up a fight. The Mexicans conquer Texas, and the Texans knowing their in the wrong accept this without too much struggle.

So the Germans put on a Nazi act and go "Boo!" scaring all the former Warsaw pact members into reconstituting the Warsaw pact and crying to Mother Russia for Help. Of course a real "Hitler Reborn" wouldn't be so stupid as to start a war that it obviously couldn't win, he had some reasons to believe he could win World War II though. The German facism is just window dressing to bring Poland into line besides its socialist brothers. I kind of prefer the first version where the Germans don't play into so much contration camp stereotypes and the Poles aren't such good socialists. I don't much buy into the old Soviet line that the Warsaw pact was an actual voluntary membership of East European countries genuinely concerned about Western Aggression, this stuff was Pravda grist. I prefer that the countries involved behave more like they did during the Cold War rather than take on new natures. The US is not going to ally itself with the "Fourth Reich", at least not the US I know.

 

[TKalbfus]

PBI said,

Well, canon is against you. And your point about Kirov is more or less moot, because the text of the timeline does specify industrial centres related to war prudutction and the cities those were in. The problem with Mexico invading the US is that the civilian command structure was gone by then and Mexico had already been hit during the denial round of strikes.

Even if the Milgov commander wanted to launch nukes, even if any commander anywhere wanted t launch nukes, they'd have to have a working communication system and the folks that turn the keys would have to follow the order and after the strikes that had already gone in, after the general collapse of civilization, with large formations already refusing to follow orders to continue the fight, I doubt the missle types would agree to carry out such an order.

This begs the question of why the US nuked Mexico in the first place if it wasn't prepared for the Mexicans getting mad about this and attacking. The US didn't actually think that Mexico would actually get mad at the US destroying one of its cities did it? Naw, the US obviously didn't, that's why it didn't fortify its southern border to prepare for a Mexican invasion. Another paper tiger for righteous Mexicans to vent their fury on, they can step on our flimsy corpse and declare that once again David beat Golliath. Make the Americans pay a high price for its bigness, big bad weak bully that it is.

 

[TKalbfus]

I prefer a World War III that devastates the World, but with some real bad guys who start it, and not with moral justifications. World War II was a War of Good vs Evil, it was the bad guy Axis vs. the Good guy Allies. The Soviets were not the good guys during the Cold War, they were also not the moral equals of the US simply because it was one super power ant the US was another. The Soviet Union was an expansionist empire, it had some convienant labels for its Empire, one was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the other was the Warsaw Pact. In Essence the USSR was the Russian Empire under new leadership, the communists took over from the Czar and they renamed the Russian Empire into something more democratic sounding. The Warsaw Pact was a convieniant fiction to tamp down nationalist uprisings in newly conquered Eastern Europe, in order to let them vent some steam, the Russians allowed the Poles, the Czecks, Slovaks, East Germans Romanians, Bulgarians to keep their own countries while they concentrated their efforts on Russiafying the Soviet Republics. Its no coincidence that the people who miss the USSR the most are the Russians themselves, they were never fooled by this propaganda about the USSR being a union among equals.

As for the Poles willingly aligning themselves with Russia against German. The Poles remember the Germans very well when they invaded in September 1939, and they also remember what "good allies" the Soviets were when the Germans did invade. The Russians made it so the Germans had to conquer only half of Poland in the first wave of the Invasion. The Russians could have bolstered their slavic allies in Poland by sending them weapons and equipment to make the Germans task harder, but they didn't. The Russians conquered half of Poland and the Germans the other half and the Poles remember this. I know this for a fact because my wife is Polish. I don't think the Poles would willingly join the Warsaw Pact because they knew that their status as a nominal independent nation in the Warsaw pact was only temporary, that is until the Russians got around to mustering the resources to properly Russify them, basically what they would do would be to relocate alot of Russian immigrants into Poland until Poles were a minority within their own country, then the new Polish citizens will vote to become a Soviet Republic, this is what happened in the Baltic Republics, and Poland was right next door.

 

[PBI]

It never actually says who nukes who with regards to Mexico, or any of the other neutrals. I always assumed that it was a case of both sides doing the nuking. As for the reason why Mexico was nuked, read the timeline.

Tom, I didn't post the entire 8 pages of the updated timeline, so I summarized. If you want to know why Poland would not leave the Warsaw Pact, I can give a perfect reason; in th T2K timeline, Gorbachev is still in charge of the USSR, so the old Warsaw Pact is mostly gone. Also, the USSR is still a superpower in T2K and suddenly finds itself in need of friends now that the economy starts to go downhill, so a very different Soviet attitude takes shape towards the Warsaw Pact members.

Another reason is the lingering fear that exists over what a united, strong Germany will do ( a fear which existed in real life, particularly among the USSR and the rest of the Pact, but also in France). The updated timeline has the Pact change from the old thinly-veiled puppet state arrangement into a true alliance, a bit more shaky than NATO, perhaps, but if you read the timeline, that's the impression you get. It's worth noting that the USSR didn't demand forces to help in the Far East, it asked, and contented itself with receiving about 3 division equivalents worth. I'm not saying the post-92 USSR in the timeline is all sweetness and light, but it definitely isn't your Dad's old Commie dictatorship, either.

As for the Germans going Nazi, they didn't. A small group in the right posiitons went right-wing (or simply stopped pretending) and decided to try a grab for power, thinking that because they wished a thing, then that thing would happen. That's a common factor in a lot of history, so it's not that far-fetched. Why the rest of Germany went along once the shooting started, well, it's not like the cabal and its objectives were common knowledge. It's in the timeline so that GMs, mostly, won't have to guess. There are also plenty of examples in history where a nation gets into a war that a large chunk of the population doesn't like but the people close ranks until the shooting is over.

It's plain, Tom, that we see things differently on how the updated timeline works and we'll only end up arguing about this forever, so why don't we simply agree to disagree?

 

[TKalbfus]

PBI said,

a fear which existed in real life, particularly among the USSR and the rest of the Pact, but also in France

This is a gem! France wanted to keep Germany particianed much like France hoping for the CSA to succeed during the American Civil War. Now Germany thinks that France makes a much better ally than the USA? This is so precious, really!

As for the Germans going Nazi, they didn't. A small group in the right posiitons went right-wing (or simply stopped pretending) and decided to try a grab for power, thinking that because they wished a thing, then that thing would happen.

A right wing German government would be anticommunist and support Polands anti-communism as well. Poland as you remember threw out the communists, and they aren't going to welcome them back and invite them to take back their political monopoly. Russia and Poland were never natural allies, even in the time of the Czars this was true. As I recall, Poland was particianed by Germany, Austria, and Russia in the 18th century. Poland got its independence after World War I, and Poland was once more invaded by Germany and Russia at the start of World War II. Why Poland would Trust Russia, makes not sense to me.

 

[Drakich]

Originally posted by PBI:
It never actually says who nukes who with regards to Mexico, or any of the other neutrals. I always assumed that it was a case of both sides doing the nuking. As for the reason why Mexico was nuked, read the timeline.

It never says, but I should think the answer is pretty darn obvious unless one is being intentionally obtuse. The US is the prime market for Mexican oil. The US would thus have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by nuking the Pemex facilities. The USSR, by nuking those facilities, cuts the US from a nearby source of oil. Occams razor: the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

You have to jump through some pretty contorted logic to assert that the US pre-emptively nuked Mexico in early 1998, but refrained from doing so 6 months later when Mexican units crossed the Rio Grande. Remember, Mexico protested US treatment of their refugees, not the US nuking them. Ipso facto, the USSR nuked Mexico. Anything else doesn't make sense. You might as well say Mexico nuked themselves at that point.

 

[saultrpgplayer]

Glad to see a lively debate. I always find the varying view points so intriguing.

I will concentrate on the Mexican Invasion of the US and if it plausible and leave the European War effort out of it. Now I would like to point out how often in the last 4 years that President Fox of Mexico has called up President Bush of USA to get his point across.

Now lets say you have a war that goes Nuclear such as is proposed in any Twilight: 2000. The US is fighting on several fronts already. Central Europe, former Yugoslavia(?), Iran, Korea, and up the west coast. Then realized that the only regular Army units left in the states are the 194th Armored and 197th Mechanized(which is hard to believe they weren't sent Europe, but it GDW story isn't it) and the 10th Mountain which is playing artic FTX games up in Alaska to kick Soviet invasion there out. Most of the NG and Reserve Training Divisions were already sent overseas or kept to help out in Disaster Relief. Most of these units had been diverted to the Northwest. Leaving largely support units and those Training Division that were deemed needed to be left in place to train replacement for not only the Northwest, but elsewhere.

Now remember of the large Mexican population that is already in the US before the war. Most of these people would find work more readily up to 1997 due to the fact that large segment of the US Population has been mobilized and sent to Europe, Korea, and Middle East to fight the war. Then the nukes strikes come in. What is left of the US Government at the time(before the split) would then have to redistribute unit locations. Large areas would be left on their own as the Government tries to restore order. At this time the 49th Armored Division which incidently if IRC from the US Vehicle Guide was the last of the NG heavy units left in the states with the 197th and 194th would be spread out through large areas of the US.

Several Brigades from the National Guards and Reserve would be converted to Infantry come MP to help out. Then the Soviet Invasion in 1998 of Alaska which I find kinda late but hey it their story. Would suck troops who were on disaster relieve duty. Most of these troops would incidently come from southwest. Due to the east of getting them from point A to point B. While this is going on the US Government splits. Also due to brillance and/or ignorance both sides of the US Government send the last trickle of replacements out(which considering the invasion of Alaska and other concerns is on par to the mess the current US Military finds itself in. Getting of my soap box about that).

While this is all happen there are various attacks conducted in all along the US-Mexican Border against not only Mexicans but also American-Mexicans. Most of these people had been here since 1997. I don't see many crossing over the border after the nukes fall in Texas or California. They were already here. I see lot of these moving south and not north as per game, but then again it is GDW story not ours.

Lot of these are conducted by people who see there transits as taking food out of their mouth. The Mexican Government makes a couple request to the US Government to do something to stop these attacks on to their citizens or they would have to do something themselves to stop them. Well unfortunantly these requests were sent to the Civilian Government which Mexico and several other Nuetral Governments still see as the legitmate government of the US. Failing to realized that most military units near the Mexican border are reporting to the Military Government.

Mexico Government can't sit idle anymore due to internal pressures to do something about what is happen to it citizens across the border does what any soveriegn nation feels it has to do to protect it citizens. At this time Cuba Division, Commander(yes I agree it wouldn't really have the organization of anything the Soviets OOB, but be an ad-hoc collection of specialist with maybe at a reach with one MRR, TR, and Artillery Regiment at the most) ask the Mexican Government if they would like some help. The Mexicans after rolling over several Training Division that had been activated for combat were finally running into the 49th Armored and the reconstituted 40th Mechanized(Training before they were hastily reequiped) in Texas and California. Were finding out they were no match for US heavy units and fearing that the 194th and 197th would be rolled south to help as well as other units freed up after the Soviet Invasion collaspe under it weight in the Northwest welcomes the reinforcement into Texas.

All the while 40th Mechanized in California and the 49th Armored in Texas is playing damage control while falling back. With the overwhelming number of Mexican forces in Texas and the introduction of the Cuba Division with it limited combat units. Along with the increasing number of the Reserve Training Divisions crumbling the 49th itself crumbles. Texas is largely abandoned due to lack of manpower and equipment on the US side.

At the time the Military Government won't move the 197th or the 194th from there location due to the fact that both hold key locations if they are to help rebuild America. The best option they see is fall back, rebuild, and try to contain the Mexicans in Texas. The Mexican Army on the other Army had found out that like a snake at times do to late. They had a meal they couldn't quite swallow, even with the Cuba Division help it was time to consolidate before they took anymore. Also at home in Mexico there was basically a civil war happen and units were chosing sides. Not much different than what had happen with US units a couple years earlier. This bringing the stalemate that Texas was during the years 2000 and 2001.

In California it was a see-saw battle, but here again there weren't enough forces on either side to make a effort in either dirrection a overwhelming success. Even though the Mexican Army by some accounts was stronger, it was still fragmented. So like in Texas by 2000 they pull back to lick wounds and see what come next.

Ironically even if the US wasn't in a state of War as in Twilight: 2000. Even using 1988 US Army OOB it would still take every troop in the regular Army units west of the Mississippi to seal the border. Even then it would break down to 1 person for 300 meter or so with no reserve line to back them up IIRC a tidbit fact that I read at one time. So given the US military that was left in the US at the time(In any of the 3 timelines). Yes, I would say it is very plausible(not very realistic with reality, but plausible as written by GDW).

Then again most of the stuff written by GDW wasn't too plausible, but as already pointed out it was largely done to put all nations on a level playing field and the Mexican Invasion IMHO was used to reinforce this. Some food for thought.

Abbott