[eia] Mike's points

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    Mike raises two very excellent point, and I'm not quite sure what to
think about them.  I'm not sure whether Egyptian forces under British
control can attack Turkey when Britain is not at war with Turkey.  After
all, for the time being at least, Egyptian forces count as British forces
for all other purposes.  It seems to me that all the Egyptian forces should
be able to do is defend themselves unless GB wants to declare war on Turkey.
(Now if Russia had taken control of Egypt, then it would have been a
different story.)  If this thinking is correct, then JJ's orders will have
to be amended.  I'll hunt through the rules and look for any wording
specifically relating to this topic.
    I think Mike is right about his second point as well.  When Turkey's
troops left Damietta without leaving a garrison, the town reverted to
Egyptian control.  (That is what allows GB to put a depot there.)  If so,
that should eject the Turkish fleet back into the Mediterranean.  But again,
I'll look for some rules-language on this point.

kdh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gorman" <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 1:17 AM
Subject: [eia] Minor control thoughts


> The Egyptian attack on Jerusalem got me to wondering what would happen if
> someone declared war on a  minor nation and that minor nation managed to
> take over one of the attackers minors.  If the major power controlling the
> attacked minor is not at war with the attacking major power, can they take
> control of a the conquered minor?  It would seem that that would require a
> declaration of war since you're taking a minor nation away from another
> major power.
>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>


_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia