Re: [eia] more 12.4

["J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kyle, the heart of Everett's and my objections (assuming I understand him
correctly), is that we do not believe any new forces should be allowed to
_enter_ formerly enemy territory for the purpose of getting to another
enemy's territory.  At all.  Under any circumstance.  So in the first
example, France should not be allowed to move forces into and through
Lombardy just to get closer to a garrison or depot in southern Italy.

Maybe the confusion here is that we are talking about forces being allowed
to go into formerly enemy territory, not rying to restrict the movement of
forces already in formerly enemy territory at the time peace was made.  So
in the same example, if France had had corps already in Lombardy when it was
ceded to Austria, they could move into southern Italy, but France could not
send corps into Lombardy (after peace is declared), and then through into
southern Italy.

I think that, if adopted, the suggestion to "honors of war" garrisons out of
formerly enemy territory will allow us to say that forces not in f.e.t. at
the time peace is declared cannot enter f.e.t. at all without voluntary
access.

-JJY


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] more 12.4


>     Sorry if I'm behind the times and the state of play is now such that
> these suggestions are no longer relevant.  I just haven't had the time to
> keep up.  But I wasn't sure I understood what Everett was objecting to
here.
> (Specific questions are below.)
>
> > I have problems with the following things that could result:
> >
> >
> > > 3. X's units may enter an area of Y's under the following
circumstances:
> > >  Corps only:
> > >   a. doing so brings X's corps nearer to one of X's garrisons
> > >   b. doing so brings X's corps nearer to an X-allied depot
> >
> > So, as long as France had a garrison or a depot in Italy it could cross
> over Lombardy to fight the British in Italy.
> >
>
>     I don't understand this objection.  Who has France made peace with in
> your scenario?  If it is Austria, then of course France's troops could
move
> to join the fight in Italy.  I see no problem with that.  But if France
has
> not made peace with Austria, then French troops would not have access to
> move through Austrian territory.  Is there something else that I am
missing
> here?
>
> > >   e. there is an enemy unit that on its next move could reach the area
> X's
> > > unit currently occupies
> >
> > So complete free reign?   So, since France will always be at war with
> > England, France could move a unit to Genoa, then claim that England
> > could reach it by boat, so now it has the right to cross Lombardy.
> >
>
>     Again, I'm puzzled by this objection.  What we are talking about here
> are the access conditions that an army has to the territory of a former
> enemy after peace is made.  (This is the "limited access" mentioned but
not
> described in 12.4.)  When we talk about lifting the restrictions when
there
> are threatening belligerents nearby, we are talking only about lifting the
> restrictions on access to the country that you just made peace with.
We're
> not talking about getting access to other countries (which are not parties
> to the peace treaty).
>
>     Did I misunderstand your objections, Everett?  If so, please clarify.
>
> kdh
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia
>
>


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