----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:45
AM
Subject: Re: [eia] various thoughts
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
neutrality.
-JJY
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:37
AM
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 -----
From:
Kyle H
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:04
AM
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