Iceland and a Call to Add Egypt to the List of Countries

[Edwin P.]

Any comments on the effect of adding Iceland to the game?

Historically:

1940 - When Denmark falls to the Nazi Germany, Iceland is occupied by British troops to prevent a German attack.

1941 - U.S. forces take over defence of Iceland from British.

1944 - Iceland declares full independence at Þingvellir.

[ April 18, 2004, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

Although Iceland shows up as a seperate country in SC2 in reality it was a part of Denmark until an island wide vote in 1944.

[Edwin P.]

Another Item - Egypt is not listed as a seperate country in the Country screen. I could understand it as being controlled by the UK but I would like to see it have the chance to become an independent nation if the English withdrew all troops from Egypt the Germans drove out the British, as many Egyptians hoped for.

It should be noted that Egypt as a UK countrolled Country would not give the Axis any plunder if it was liberated by the Germans and thus would not change the economic structure of the game.

In 1922 Egypt was allowed sovereignty and Fuad became king. In 1936 the Anglo-Egyptian treaty was signed which gave Egypt a little bit of independence although superficially. In 1937, the Tribunaux Mixtes, which were the foreign courts, were done away with. The Egyptians still were not satisfied. The British were still in occupation, controlled most of the economic life and still controlled the canal.

Egypt became a British protectorate until 1922, with British troops guarding the Suez canal and other vital British interest. Mustafa Kamel, Sa'ad Zaghloul, Mustafa El Nahas and many others were prominent figures who strove to achieve two national objectives; independence and constitutional reform. After repeated riots and unrest, the British formally terminated the protectorate and declared Egypt independent. In 1923, the first Constitution was promulgated and Sa'ad Zaghloul formed the first representative government of Egypt. However, British troops continued to guard the Suez Canal. In 1936, 16 year old Farouk came to power, in place of his father Fuad. An Anglo-Egyptian treaty signed in that year regulated the size of British forces in Egypt and guaranteed that Britain would be able to continue to safeguard its interest in the canal, a vital strategic asset.

World War II - British reoccupied Egypt during WW II, and used it as a base to fight Rommel's Afrika Corps. The Nazis came close to conquering Egypt after reaching El-Alamein, but the "Desert Fox," General Erwin Rommel, had outrun his meager supplies and was defeated by Viscount Montgomery at the battle of El-Alamein in November of 1942. Though it was portrayed as a great allied victory, Rommel in fact had about 20 tanks in working condition at the time, and the British had amassed a huge force. Many Egyptians openly sympathized with the Nazis, hoping they would drive out the British. Late in the war, Egypt led other Arab countries j in formulating the Alexandria Protocol, leading to formation of the Arab League, to pressure the British for independence

With the beginning of World War II, Egypt again became vital to Britain's defense. Britain had to assure, if not the wholehearted support of Egypt, at least its acquiescence in British military and political policies during the crisis. For its part, Egypt considered the war a European conflict and hoped to avoid being entangled in it. As one Axis victory succeeded another, Egyptians grew increasingly convinced that Germany would win the war. Some were pleased at the prospect of a German victory, not because they were attracted to the Nazi ideology, but because they viewed any enemy of their enemy, Britain, as a friend. Meanwhile, the British were determined to prevent an Egyptian-German alliance.

Uncertain of the loyalty of Prime Minister Ali Maher and convinced that the king was intriguing against them, the British decided to entrust the Egyptian government to the Wafd. On February 2, 1942, with the German army under General Erwin Rommel advancing toward Egypt, Lampson, the British ambassador, ordered the king to ask Mustafa Nahhas, the Wafdist leader, to form a government. The incident clearly demonstrated that real power in Egypt resided in British hands and that the king and the political parties existed only so long as Britain was prepared to tolerate them.

So add Egypt as a new minor country but have it start the war controlled by the United Kingdom. If the Axis occupy Cairo it is liberated and becomes a German Minor Ally (as the Egyptians had a rather strong dislike for the English). Neither side gets any plunder from occupying Egypt. Thus adding a bit of historical flavor to the game .

This change recognizes the fact that the British were only able to maintain control over the Egyptian government only so long as they maintained troops in Egypt. If they had withdrawn them then the Egyptians,who strongly hated the British, would have revolted against any vestiges of control exerted by the remaining British officials. In fact, the British suspected that the King was a nationalist and plotting against them.

In addition, the Egyptian government was so far in debt that its is economic contribution was minimal and largely limited to the export of cotton and transit fees from the Suez canal. Thus no plunder.

Simarily, if Vichy Algeria is conquered by the Germans (not the Italians) I would have a new country appear - Morroco (a protectorate of France under the Treaty of Fez). Although this country would not have any cities or effect on the game it would add even more historical flavor to the existing map.

[ April 19, 2004, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Exel]

I don't know about anything else, but if Germany occupies Iceland, the lend-lease shipments from USA to USSR should be stopped or seriously hampered.

[jon_j_rambo]

Egypt is a non-factor & has been for 5000 years. They can't feed their people, let alone fight Germans effectively.

[Edwin P.]

NO one said the Egyptians wanted to fight, they just wanted the British out of their country, a reflection of the fact that it was sovereign in name only.

Egypt had a larger population and native army than did Iceland, Denmark and the Baltic States, nations that are included in SC2. Moreover, the population of Egypt exceeded that of most other European states of the period.

Adding Egypt as a seperate country would also create interesting possiblities for player developed scenarios dealing with the Arab-Israeli Wars, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.

PS: HC could you have the designer add the pyramids to the city icon for Cairo, the Empire State Building to New York and the Partheon to Athens.

[ April 19, 2004, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Regarding the 5000 year part and feeding their people -- ironically Egypt was the breadbasket of the Roman Empire!

Up till Cleopatra (c2000 years ago) it was one of Rome's rivals done in by poor leaders but the country itself had a lot of influence.

In WWII, under King Faruk, Egypt was a non-entity, it would have gone over immediately to which ever side occupied it.

Iceland was also a non-entity. The German High Command never understood it's strategic importance and didn't try to use it as a U-boat / air base. The British were apprehensive about an Axis base there from the start and established a garrison which it later turned over to American troops. But it seems to me like a double edged problem. If the Axis does take Iceland then perhaps they should have a problem keeping it supplied?

Regarding Malta; I don't think taking it would have been as difficult as is usually made out. The Axis never really made the attempt. At one point Kesselring bombed it into near oblivion and Rommel -- in my hindsight opinion foolishly -- talked him into cancelling the actual landing and sending those troops (German and Italian paratroopers and supporting Italian infantry) directly to North Africa. If the operation would have been carried out instead I think Malta would have fallen more easily than Creete as it was completely removed from reinforcement and resupply.

[vveedd]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Egypt is a non-factor & has been for 5000 years. They can't feed their people, let alone fight Germans effectively.

I agree. I would rather see Netherlands and Belguim separate. As I have seen they are still together on the map as Benelux. Hubert?

[ April 19, 2004, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

[Ron]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Iceland was also a non-entity. The German High Command never understood it's strategic importance and didn't try to use it as a U-boat / air base. The British were apprehensive about an Axis base there from the start and established a garrison which it later turned over to American troops. But it seems to me like a double edged problem. If the Axis does take Iceland then perhaps they should have a problem keeping it supplied?

Regarding Malta; I don't think taking it would have been as difficult as is usually made out. The Axis never really made the attempt. At one point Kesselring bombed it into near oblivion and Rommel -- in my hindsight opinion foolishly -- talked him into cancelling the actual landing and sending those troops (German and Italian paratroopers and supporting Italian infantry) directly to North Africa. If the operation would have been carried out instead I think Malta would have fallen more easily than Creete as it was completely removed from reinforcement and resupply.

That's interesting, I was under the impression the British knew full well the strategic importance of Iceland as it played a key role in extending the air coverage over the Atlantic and nullifying U-Boat operations(air coverage that is).

Kesselring planned on attacking and occupying Malta after Rommel captured Tobruk. They didn't have enough airplanes to fully satisfy both operations concurrently. Troops were being trained in France for the assault. Kesselring was fully aware of the long term effect of Malta on the supply situation in Africa, the monthly tonnage lost spoke for itself. It was the failure of the German High Command, who succumbed to Rommel's influence and fantasies, when they decided to go for the quick knockout blow in Egypt instead of the long term win by taking Malta, after Tobruk was taken. Another of the many 'what-ifs'.

Ron

[jon_j_rambo]

Rommel is overated. Why? North Africa was a total waste of time. Why would you take precious men, tanks, fuel & food, travel all the way to N. Africa to fight? There's nothing in Libya worth fighting for. Did the Germans actually think they were going to drive to the Suez/Middle East & take the oil? Allied Naval Ship ruled the seas. The Germans lost in North Africa thanks to stupid strategic commanders. Yeah, tactical Rommel pulled some nice manuevers, but that doesn't matter when it was an overall fruitless adventure.

Imagine if the German dummies had concentrated their forces in Russia. Take the resources sent to N.Africa & shove them into Army Group North. The Germans shouldn't have split Barbarossa into 3-Groups either. 2-Groups plus N.Africa resouces would have taken 2 major cities in Russia (Moscow, Lennigrad, or Stalingrad).

[Terry]

Some interesting points but my take is that they are irrelevant from a strategic point of view:

1)Icelands independence in 1944 made no practical diffence to its status and its reliance on Denmark economically and to the US/GB for protection. So it doesn't make any real difference what its status is at the start of the game.

From a stratgeic point of view its occupation by Germany may have boosted the U-Boat campiagn and hence damaged Lend/Lease etc. However, while certainly it is true the Germans might have taken it quickly the reality is they would never have had the reources to defend it against an American attack.

So owning should make a difference but it is not one of those fundamnetal turning points.

2) Egypt as a seperate country seems pointless. If its occupied by the Axis,then its occupied and that should be enough. Whta difference does it make if its Axis occupied or a puppet reigme under Nazi control. The fact is they were occupied either way and it probably suited them more to be occupied by the British than the Germans/Itals (who didn't have a great record for grafting themselves onto local cultures (which was the British method used so successfully)). Indonesia etc showed that the 'liberated' people soon turned aginst their new occuppiers. It was for this reasin the INP eventually decided it was better to be 'British' for the war then Axis.

Again its a nice gesture but I hope Hubert is concentrating on more fundamental issues to the game mechanic. After all, a Panzer Division in Alexnadria is all that is strategically required.

[Exel]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Rommel is overated. Why? North Africa was a total waste of time.

You are barking at the wrong tree. Rommel was the commander of the Afrika Korps, but it wasn't his decision to go there in the first place. Generals do what their superiors tell them to do. Blaming Rommel for going to Africa is like praising Patton for Normandy.

[JerseyJohn]

Ron

This is what I said:

"The British were apprehensive about an Axis base there from the start and established a garrison which it later turned over to American troops."

You completely mis-read it. Apprehensive = they were worried about the Axis controling Iceland. Of course they knew perfectly well what the consequences would be -- and that's what I wrote!

Even if the Germans failed to establish an effective outpost there and only occupied it with a garrison they'd have gained a tremendous advantage by preventing an Allied base from being set up there. It was a vital anti-submarine base.

I said it was the German High Command that failed to realize it's strategic importance.

On the Malta situation -- Rommel sold the High Command on the idea that he only needed to push east quickly and he'd be in Alexandria, making Malta insignificant as supplies would then be sent through the Eastern Med. He captured large stores of petrol and other supplies at Tobruck and that was what they used to make that initial run with.

Von Paulus was sent to evaluate the situation prior to taking command of the Sixth Army and his recommendation was that Rommel consolodate and Malta be taken before a Suez campaign was begun. Sound advice that was ignored.

[ April 19, 2004, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Lars]

Originally posted by vveedd:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Egypt is a non-factor & has been for 5000 years. They can't feed their people, let alone fight Germans effectively.

I agree. I would rather see Netherlands and Belguim separate. As I have seen they are still together on the map as Benelux. Hubert? </font>

[Blashy]

I agree Egypt should be a sole entity, especialy for the use in other mods .

And should Iceland be taken by the Axis, the USA / USSR lend/lease would definitly have to be seriously hampered.

[Terry]

Taking Iceland would undoubtedly have some effect on UK supplies. However, surely there would be a huge cranking of US war readiness and how efective would a German defence be unless they controlled the UK and Canada (if they did why bother with Iceland). Again its a nice extra but i still think we are not talking a major (or even meduim) truning point.

[JerseyJohn]

Iceland is a less than major, more than minor situation.

Possession of it would not have won the war for Germany, but not having an Allied air base on the Island would have made the North Atlantic a much more dangerous place. Likewise, a German airbase and sub-base at that location would probably have given them control of the North Atlantic. Their main problem would have been supplying it.

The Allies also had a base in Greenland, but Iceland was probably more important.

[Edwin P.]

Not only supplying it but also holding it against a determined invasion. The good news is that the seas around Iceland are so rough during the winter and the winters so brutal and beaches so rugged (if any country has a lack of good invasion landing areas in Europe its Iceland and Norway, compared to them the coast of France is a cakewalk) that any invasion would be most troublesome if the defender has had time to prepare, once the British occuppied the isles any chance of a German invasion became much more difficult.

[ April 19, 2004, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Yes, it would be the Atlantic version of the Aleutian Islands.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

I think Hubert implied somewhere [reading between

the lines on the SC2 splash page] that oceanic

supply lines would be present and subject to

interdiction, in much the same manner that

convoy lines will be [and hopefully more or less

as I outlined in an old post of mine several

months back].

John DiFool

[Ron]

JerseyJohn, didn't misread and wasn't commenting on anything other than your statement "Iceland was also a non-entity." Apology for the confusion.

Ron

[JerseyJohn]

Ron

No apology necessary -- or I'd be apologizing all the time to almost everybody!

Yes, I understand what you're saying now, breaking my own rule, I apologize for putting it that way, it does make my statement confusing, probably I was still thinking about Cleopatra in Egypt.

What I really meant was that Egypt and Iceland were political non-entities during the Second World War. Officially Egypt was neutral -- there were Italian and UK embasies down the street from one another!

The problem, to me, is that conquering Denmark does not mean controlling Iceland, as per the historical situation. Conquering the UK should probably not mean Axis control of Egypt either.

-- It seems like a small issue but I think it can become important in numerous situations. Also, I'd be interested in knowing how these two states are treated in the scenario editor.

Rather than go on I'll leave it open for discussion -- again, my apologies for wording it so poorly.

[Edwin P.]

The problem, to me, is that conquering Denmark does not mean controlling Iceland, as per the historical situation.

I believe that this might be why HC listed Iceland as a seperate country, and it should be noted that at the time Iceland only had a local police force to enforce law and order for its very small population. Additionaly, the UK did not wait to be invited into Iceland after Denmark surrendered to the Axis it merely invaded the island and the Icelandic government accepted it after the fact.

Conquering the UK should probably not mean Axis control of Egypt either.

I agree as I feel that the Egyptian government and populace would have responded to this event by celebrating their independence of British influence and being willing to resist, to a limited degree, any new European overseer.

The key in Egypt's case is how would the Axis have handled an independent Egypt, with respect or with disdain?

With respect and no forces need be diverted to garrison Egypt.

With disdain and sizable numbers of troops might be needed to pacify the region, troops that could be better used on the Russian front. With disdain and perhaps the other Arab nations such as Iraq, Iran and Turkey might join the Allies if they felt they had no other option and they were promised aid from America and Russia.

What might happan to a Neutral Egypt after the UK surrenders?

1. Axis Attacks Neutral Egypt

---- Perhaps Turkey decides to annex Syria and Iraq before the Axis troops can.

---- Perhaps the other nations of the region (Turkey, Iraq, Iran) panic and join the Allies

---- Perhaps the other nations in the area are too afraid to do anything.

2. Perhaps the Muslim nations (Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Iran) enter into a joint defense agreement. If one is attacked then that will be considered an attack against all. Of course what is signed on paper might not be followed by actions.

Perhaps this is an area for diplomatic action? It would make the Middle East a very interesting area and provide an opportunity for an Allied comeback from a successful Sea Lion, if they could convince the countries of the Middle East to join the Allies.

[ April 20, 2004, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Interesting points.

UK in Iceland -- yes, the old might is right idea but in a velvet glove, they felt that Denmark was a British Ally and as such they had every right to garrison it's possessions.

I tend to believe that, if they hadn't, The Germans would have quickly realized it's value after establishing themselves in Norway and sent a brigade or two to take the place. After that it would have been a simple matter to reinforce the initial force, especially with some long range aircraft, probably JU-88s and after that they could have sent fighters via cargo vessels.

Historically the Germans simply missed the opportunity -- they had a narrow window of opportunity but thought the war was already over and didn't act upon it.

Okay, Hubert has it set up as an independant nation -- but if Denmark is attacked, as it inevitably will be -- does that mean it's still neutral? And if it's activated does it have an army?

Egypt

Basically I agree with you except, assuming UK falls, there are still tens of thousands of Common Wealth Troops in the country.

What exactly is the Egyptian Army and does it fight against the Commonwealth after the UK is knocked out of the war? Same questions and situation regarding Trans-Jordan, Syria, Arabia, Iraq, Cyprus, Malta and Gibraltar. Do these places continue to become German -- or is there a new twist to things; one I feel would be much more likely in an historical sense.

Which raises another interesting point -- Does the Common Wealth continue in the war if the British Isles are occupied?

-- I see you've added possibilities to these situations in the above post, but the basic questions still stand as there would also be other ways those territories could go.

[Edwin P.]

Historically at that point in time the Egyptian Army was rather small, I will try to find the acutual numbers, and ill equipped as the British Government did not trust them and Egyptian government officials and military officers embezzeled money meant for the army. To a large degree this also explains why the Egyptians lost the 1948 war against Israel. Esentially their army = poor equipment + poor training + corrupt officers.

I did find the following:

On November 19, 1924, Sir Lee Stack, the British governor general of Sudan and commander of the Egyptian army, was assassinated in Cairo. The assassination was one of a series of killings of British officials that had begun in 1920. Allenby, who considered Stack an old and trusted friend, was determined to avenge the crime and in the process humiliate the Wafd and destroy its credibility in Egypt. Allenby demanded that Egypt apologize, prosecute the assailants, pay a £500,000 indemnity, withdraw all troops from Sudan, consent to an unlimited increase of irrigation in Sudan and end all opposition to the capitulations (Britain's demand of the right to protect foreign interests in the country). Zaghlul wanted to resign rather than accept the ultimatum,

It appears that Egypt had a sizable number of troops in the Sudan at that point in time.

[ April 20, 2004, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]