It's foolish to suggest that a minor countries troops are limited to it's own borders when they are attacked. I makes more sense to say that any territory they gain becomes neutral. ----- Original Message ----- From: Kyle H Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:04 AM To: eia@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [eia] various thoughts I've decided that Ney will fight outside the city after all.
Yes, Turkey's fleet has to leave Damietta. 6.2.6 reads: "If a port in
which a fleet is located becomes enemy-controlled, the fleet must be moved
*immediately* (...) into an adjacent sea area or the port's blockade box."
With regard to whether the Egyptians can attack Palestine, I have not
found any definitive language. (4.6.5.2 talks about the controlling major
power's forces not being allowed to help, but it doesn't say whether the
minor country forces themselves may launch a cross-border attack.) So we
are left asking ourselves what makes sense. On the one hand, it seems to
make some intuitive sense that a minor country's forces can be used to
attack the forces that are invading it, even if those forces have not yet
crossed the border. On the other hand, I don't think it is makes sense to
suggest that Britain could take control of Palestine away from Turkey
without a British declaration of war against Turkey. And, to me, this
latter consideration is more weighty.
So if we accept the principle that Britain can't gain territory from
Turkey as a result of Turkey's war with Egypt, then what rule makes sense.
Does it make sense to say that Egypt's forces can cross the border to engage
Turkish forces but cannot subsequently take control of the territory they
occupy? That doesn't make sense to me. So I would suggest that the most
reasonable ruling is that minor country forces should not be able to launch
cross-border attacks at all unless the controlling major power is at war
with the major power on the other side of the border. That seems to be the
position that is most consistent with the rules.
Another option, though, is to say that Egyptian occupation of Jerusalem
would not result in British control of Palestine, but would rather result in
Palestine's reversion to neutrality. This position would allow more
realistic use of minor country forces, and it also seems consistent with the
rules I have read.
Assuming there is no definitive language about this problem to be found,
which of the two interpretations do we prefer: no cross-border incursions
by minor country forces without a declaration of war, or minor country
occupation without a declaration of war results in reversion to neutrality?
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
|