Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php)
-   TWILIGHT: 2000 (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=41)
-   -   Space:1959 (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=34391)

scottscane May 19th, 2015 01:22 AM

Space:1959
 
One idea I had was to start Twilight 2.2 et al in the fifties with a alternate space race. WWIII doesn't start until '68 during the 'Prague Spring, no Viet Nam War but there is a Second Korean War in'59 to start things off. Little things like Elvis staying in the army and the ONTOS fitted with Davy Crocketts.

aramis May 19th, 2015 02:04 AM

Exception to the 1950 limit on "Real World Politics" granted, allowing to 1970, for discussion purposes

aramis May 19th, 2015 02:05 AM

Historically, the "Vietnam War" begins in 1954. Look for it under the name "Second Indochina War"... US involvement is datable to 1961 as combat forces, and 1950 as advisors... during the Korean war, really, but also the tail end of the First Indochina War.

http://www.historynet.com/vietnam-war
http://www.vietnamwar50th.com/assets...Start_Date.pdf

So there's no need to have a second Korean War - just step up the US combat involvement, and let the Soviets and Red Chinese step up to undisguised forces aiding the VC and NVA the same way the US was the ARVN...

Sir Brad May 19th, 2015 04:25 AM

From a Strategic stand point If there was a mulity front war (from Indo-china to Formosa/Taiwan and up to the Korean Peninsula) on the Western Pacific Rim. this could embolden some of the more reluctant members of the eastern bloc in Europe to make a bid for braking away that the West could back (perhaps with open support). with active conflicts in East Asia and Europe, either side may opt for an Atomic Option to try and act as a force multiplier on either front.

Other fronts to consider are Latin America, The Caribbean, the Middle-East and Africa. If the Eastern Bloc is more aggressive and open than they where in our history this could also bring things closer to war, the same could be said about the US and to a lesser extent other western powers.

McPerth May 19th, 2015 01:00 PM

Other things that would be different (some trivial, other IMHO quite important) in 1959:
  • Spain: is not member og NATO nor EEC, being quite isolationist
  • France: de Gaulle in power and fighting Algerian insurgency in1959. Internal unrest in 1969. IMHO less likely to remain neutral in 1959, not sure in 1969.
  • Israel: quite smaller, Not sure about its nuclear weapons in 1959. Weaker nuclear power in 1969.
  • Iran: a close US allied (more so than Saudi Arabia in both 1959 and 1969).
  • Latin America (as hinted by Sir Brad). Castro has just risen to power in Cuba (in 1959). Probably URSS support would have been different if they were involved in fighting in Korea (maybe they can spare less, maybe they give it more priority just to concern the US by 1968). Not sure URSS would have backed down from Cuban Missile Crisis if there ws such a tension in Korea, nor about US being so strong in its actions there. Some other countries are starting their own gerrillas in1959, and more or less at their peack in 1968-69

Of all this, I guess Spain is the most trivial, but the situation in Middle East would be quite different from oficial T2K setting (with a weaker Israel and Saudi Arabia and a stronger Iran as US allies, and the Gulf being a pro-US basin. South America will probably be enogulfed in internal insurgecies and (to the greater picture) probably more or less neutralized.

Sir Brad May 19th, 2015 09:24 PM

France may be pushed in neutrality if in '69 they have a Home Front problem. there could be a covert deal between the French and the Sov's, France declares neutrality and the USSR doesn't directly support the Socialist Activism taking place in France.

Golan2072 May 20th, 2015 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McPerth (Post 507857)
Other things that would be different (some trivial, other IMHO quite important) in 1959:
  • Israel: quite smaller, Not sure about its nuclear weapons in 1959. Weaker nuclear power in 1969.

In 1959, according to foreign press, Israel did not have nuclear weapons yet, but it had, again according to foreign press, a nuclear program. In 1968 it might have had a certain nuclear capacity, though not necessarily anything major.

In 1959, Israel is inside the French and British sphere of influence, and is pretty cohesive politically and strong militarily. In 1969, Israel is at the height of its power and self-confidence, having steamrolled three Arab armies a mere two years before that. Syria and Egypt not to mention Jordan) won't be ready to fight the IDF by then, it took them 6 years of massive re-arming and re-training to really challenge it in 1973... In 1969, the Labour Party is at the zenith of its power and popularity and the IDF is celebrated as invincible by the Israeli public. All of this collapsed in 1973.

McPerth May 20th, 2015 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Brad (Post 507898)
France may be pushed in neutrality if in '69 they have a Home Front problem. there could be a covert deal between the French and the Sov's, France declares neutrality and the USSR doesn't directly support the Socialist Activism taking place in France.

OTOH, a foreign war could be seen as a distraction for the home front, as has passed many times (to avoid real world examples that could lead to political discusion, if you've ever played Dictador spectrum game in the 1980's, declare war to enemy country was a nice way to distract internal public opinión and rise you popularity).

IMHO both options are quite posible, but your timeline is more coherent for the post twilight war situation to be closer to T2K...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golan2072 (Post 507904)
In 1959, according to foreign press, Israel did not have nuclear weapons yet, but it had, again according to foreign press, a nuclear program. In 1968 it might have had a certain nuclear capacity, though not necessarily anything major.

In 1959, Israel is inside the French and British sphere of influence, and is pretty cohesive politically and strong militarily. In 1969, Israel is at the height of its power and self-confidence, having steamrolled three Arab armies a mere two years before that. Syria and Egypt not to mention Jordan) won't be ready to fight the IDF by then, it took them 6 years of massive re-arming and re-training to really challenge it in 1973... In 1969, the Labour Party is at the zenith of its power and popularity and the IDF is celebrated as invincible by the Israeli public. All of this collapsed in 1973.

As tensions have been growing since 1959 in this scenario (or so I understand), I wonder if USSR had not armed better its arabian allies (more so after 1958 Suez crisis, that alienated Egypt from the west) and if 1967 war could have been posible in this situation...

More things I forgot:
  • In T2K, the war begins as a China-USSR conflicto and the fact Germany dares to be so hawkish (and drags other NATO powers to war) is in no small part due to Chinese meat grinder having forced USSR to take some (most?) their A class divisions from East Europe. In your scenario, with a second Korean war in 1959 (whose outcome you didn't tell us and may have influence) and a less developed China, I have serious doubts this war could occur.
  • Related to previous point; if the China-USSR war occurs, I also wonder if the Soviets could have the strong reaction they historically did against the Czech 1968 spring.
  • In 1969, USSR did have quite a smaller fleet (the Kirovs were still not there, submarine fleet was quite smaller, etc...), and NATO fleets would have had sea supremacy (or near so).
  • Also, in 1969 there did not exist the extensive reccon satellites networks that existed in the 90's (though there were altready some of them). This would have a strong effect in the fleet actions (where NATO reccon in the Atlantic would have been quite better than the USSR, due to closer bases and larger fleet) and would have given less warning time to the missiles launching, probably leading both leaderships to massive strikes (out of fear the enemy does it) instead of the sustained small strikes given in T2K background

IMHO, all of this would make the war developement quite diferent from T2K one, and probably aftermath would also be different, though not less interesting as gaming background...

Major B May 20th, 2015 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottscane (Post 507832)
One idea I had was to start Twilight 2.2 et al in the fifties with a alternate space race. WWIII doesn't start until '68 during the 'Prague Spring, no Viet Nam War but there is a Second Korean War in'59 to start things off. Little things like Elvis staying in the army and the ONTOS fitted with Davy Crocketts.

Perhaps you could start your alternate timeline in 1956.

If Western reaction to the crackdown in Hungary were somewhat more forceful, emboldened Hungarian dissidents resist mor forcefully and longer, and the Soviet response is even more forceful. While ul;timately successful, the USSR loses more credibility.

As a result, the USSR seeks a chance to show its supremacy and incites a guerilla uprising in South Korea. NKPA infiltrators and weapons caches are in place and in 1959 touch off what they portray to the world as local unrest. FECOM holds back but the South Korean crackdown is swift and brutal bringing China in to support the USSR and North Korea into crossing the DMZ.

While both China and the USSR are also supporting the Vietnamese Communists, all players are more focused on Korea so the French are able to maintain control though fighting continues at a low level with other allies drawn in to assist.

Fighting on the Korean Penisula, with little room for maneuver, turns into a war of attrition. This war may also eventually wind down to an inconclusive result or continue at a medium boil while tensions elsewhere escalate.

Maybe this stretches plausibility too much but I hope some of the ideas I've outlined help.

BlackBat242 May 20th, 2015 09:59 PM

Not to mention the Suez crisis in 1956 - perhaps Eisenhower decides to focus on Hungary and ignore the British/French/Israeli action in Egypt instead of ignoring Hungary in favor opposing BFI over their seizure of the Suez Canal and using economic & political pressure to force the return of the Canal to Egypt.

That way BFI retain control of the Canal, and the moderately USSR-backed Egypt moves deeper into the C-bloc in an attempt to retake the Canal militarily... and the Muddle East becomes a "hot" theatre involving NATO and Russian troops supporting their respective sides - to go along with the "re-ignited Korean War".


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.