I agree with this interpretation. Without a definite
rule to follow, we need to agree on what makes the most logical sense.
Here's what makes the most sense to me:
1.) A minor country at war with a major power should
have access to the major power's territory, just as two major powers would
automatically have access to each other's territory if at war.
2.) If a minor country's forces capture the capital
of an enemy minor country, it makes no sense that the attackers would be
powerless to shoo away the ruling authorities.
3.) On the other hand, since the attacker's
controlling major power is not at war, it does not neccessarily follow that a
pro-controlling-major-power government could be set up. I therefore
believe that the conquered minor country should revert to
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:37
Subject: Re: [eia] various thoughts
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 -----
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:04
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
into an adjacent sea area or the port's blockade box."
With regard to whether the Egyptians can attack Palestine, I have
found any definitive language. (188.8.131.52 talks about the
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
Britain could take control of Palestine away from Turkey
British declaration of war against Turkey. And, to me, this
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
but cannot subsequently take control of the territory they
That doesn't make sense to me. So I would suggest that the
reasonable ruling is that minor country forces should not be able to
cross-border attacks at all unless the controlling major power is
with the major power on the other side of the border. That
seems to be the
position that is most consistent with the
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
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?
From: "Michael Gorman"
Saturday, July 27, 2002 1:17 AM
Subject: [eia] Minor control
> 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
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
> declaration of war since you're taking a minor nation away
> major power.
> eia mailing