Re: [eia] more 12.4

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    Well, that certainly explains my confusion.  Apparently, you are talking
about corps entering FET who weren't in FET at the time the war ended.  That
is, you are talking about new corps entering the former enemy's territory.
I was not reading the rule that Joel wrote in that way.

The rule we were (are?) discussing had the following wording:  "3. X's units
may enter an area of Y's under the following circumstances..."  I was
reading this as a set of criteria for a corps that is *already in* FET
entering another space within FET.

And what I was saying is that a corps should have the option of how to leave
FET.  So if France had recently concluded a war with Austria and wish to
leave Austrian territory via France's provinces in Italy, they should be
allowed to do so.  Since GB controls the seas, I can see why it would be in
GB's interest to oppose this interpretation, but I think it makes sense.
(Why should a withdrawing army be compelled to go in a certain direction
when leaving FET?  Isn't the important thing that they leave within the time
allowed?)

Anyway, thanks for your response.  It has helped me to see how you were
viewing the language we were talking about.  I hope you are now clear about
how I was looking at it.

kdh


----- Original Message -----
From: "J.J. Young" <jjy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <eia@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [eia] more 12.4


> 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
>

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