Atlantic Treaty Organization-TWTUD Subthread

Spain States that if an ATO chairman is elected, they will Leave the ATO.
We will not be dominated by a single individual, nor a single nation, like we were in the European league.
Se suggest the Appointment of Individual Leaders for the Individual areas of conflict, to oversee their coordination of the force involved. National forces would report to those leaders, and from there, the normal chain of command for individual nations.
 
Scotland understand Spain's concern. In turn, we propose the same thing, we've already proposed, except instead of Chairman, the Supreme Commanders will take orders from the decisions of the ATO council, by vote to ensure that no one nation/person has full control of ATO, of course, since unifying chain of command in world is important. But Supreme Commanders have full authority and responsibility of tactical/strategic control of the mission dictated by the consensus of ATO council.
 
Spain States that if an ATO chairman is elected, they will Leave the ATO.
We will not be dominated by a single individual, nor a single nation, like we were in the European league.
Se suggest the Appointment of Individual Leaders for the Individual areas of conflict, to oversee their coordination of the force involved. National forces would report to those leaders, and from there, the normal chain of command for individual nations.

We feel that a Chairman would not be suited for ATO, since it would make one nation in charge of the whole alliance, which is not our intent. It would also be disastrous to lose an much needed ally over such a trivial political move.

The USA votes No upon creation of an ATO chairman.

While the ATO Supreme Commander would take orders from the ATO council, he would be given the power to make snap decisions without having to consult the bureaucracy. Orders for the Supreme Commander would also be determined in private missives rather than on such an easily infiltrated forum as this.
 
Germany thinks that there should be the elimination of Theatre Commanders and the reinvention of Supreme Commanders as applying only to their Theatres, for power purposes. For example: there would be a Supreme Commander of the ATO Forces in Europe, and a Supreme Commander of the ATO Forces in South America, etc.

Germany, however, strongly opposes Supreme Commanders having absolute control, as it robs each nation's military of their own sovereignty. In that respect, National Commanders - as selected by each nation - would have the only tangible control of their nation's forces.

OOC: We are not opposed, however, to a Supreme Commander of the galactic front.
 
In response to Germany concern for their sovereignty threatened by Supreme Commanders, Scotland sees, then, no reasons for a unifying chain of command for ATO to exist. Scotland withdraws the initial proposal.
 
Eire is unwilling to support a overall commander and would only agree to a creation of a combined defense force if we could withdraw our contribution at will.

For example in an offensive war such as the war in South America we would have withdrawn any Irish forces from the group before they were sent to assist the Americans as we were unwilling to support that war at the time.

As it stands now our concerns are a moot point, besides we don't see too much need as yet for re-organizing, the old method has worked many times before. Simply continue to communicate with each other.
 
The ATO Defense Force (ADF), if you have read carefully, will only be used to DEFEND the ATO nations. And there is no sense of mentioning withdrawal of contribution because the ADF will only be deployed for defence, and will not offend any other nations outside of ATO except the aggressor.
 
Regardless, Eire is not comfortable witht the idea of losing control of even a fraction of its military.
 
The United Kingdoms of Scandinavia believes that this creatio of a ATO Chairman will undermine what the Atlantic Treaty Organisation stands for. We support the Irish Statement about a nation losing control of a portion of it's military forces. Therein, we vote NAY to the creation of the Chairman of the ATO.
 
It is now abundantly clear to us that a Unified Chain of Command, as we have suggested for the past 2 years, is vitally necessary for our alliance. The benefits were clearly demonstrated in the Low Countries where a motley multi-national force was able to push back the Soviets. The detriments were made clear by the Irish plan, which was not shared with anyone, to send their entire army from Scandinavia, across Russia, to Greece, which anyone could have told the Irish that it would end the exact way that it did. This has stripping the Irish of almost their entire ground forces and allowing the Soviets to once more occupy Finland. Another example would be the Scottish idea to drop paratroopers on a friendly city under siege, without informing the people on the ground that they were coming, and the resulting deaths of 2 Scottish Paratrooper divisions.

We hereby propose that a Unified Chain of Command be established for the forces of ATO. In it, whichever country has the majority of the forces in a region will be placed in charge of that theater. All subordinates will send military orders first to the theater commander, so that a united front may be presented to the enemy, rather than the hodge podge efforts that have been the mark of our militaries thus far. Anyone sending forces to a region must first inform the Theater Commander that they are arriving and how many troops they are bringing.

EQ, if you could figure out who is fighting where and who the Theater commanders and who their subordinates would be, that would be great :D

Since the War in South America is quickly declining (aside from Venezuela where the war is still ongoing), we would like to propose these peace time accomodations:

Ecuador, Northern Peru and Venezuela (once it is subdued)-American Occupation zones

Southern Peru and Bolivia-German occupation Zones, with the lands stolen from Chile being returned and Chilean assistance in Bolivia

Argentina-South African Occupation Zone, with all lands taken from Brazil and Chile by Argentina being returned and plebiscites for independence in the former regions of Paraguay and Uruguay.
 
We agree with the South American Solution. We also agree with the unified Chain of Command.
 
Here's the theaters and who's where in each, listed by who has largest contributions in each area.

South America
United States of America
Republic of South Africa
Brazil
Chile
Germany

Low Countries/Northern France
United States of America
Belgium
Holland

Germany
Germany
Switzerland
United Kingdoms of Scandinavia
Poland
Scotland
United States of America

Hungary
Hungary
Serbia
Switzerland
Holland

Balkans
Italy
Serbia
Hungary

North Africa
Italy
United States of America
Abyssinia

India
Union of Commonwealth States
 
Do the Scandinavian attacks count as part of the German Theatre?
 
No, Scandinavian forces are alone on their own front, thus no need for unified command. So far anyways.
 
ah, I see. My mistake
 
Italian High Command is unwilling to relinquish control of its forces to foreign commanders. We will work in tandem with our allies and greatly consider military advice, but ultimately we will not put Italian soldiers under foreign command. We see this as a degradation of Italian military independence, and thus our own national independence.
 
Italy would be theater commander of both the Balkans and North Africa. However, in Germany or France or even Scandinavia, other powers there have greater contributions. It is not too much to ask for some degree of unity where necessary.

Germany agrees with the Unified Chain of Command proposal, given that we are rightfully the Theater Commanders of our Theater.

Germany agrees with the South American Solution, doubly so given that things in Europe are looking up.
 
Top Bottom