War, two sides

[Freezing Point]

Every war has side A against side B. If one side wins, the other loses. If there are no winners, either both sides lost too much or they both withdrew.

So, what to do if in astoryline with a war, author wants a "third side"?

 

[The Judge]

I'm not sure what the problem, is. I'm also not sure your premise is accurate, that there are only ever two sides in a War. There are always shifting alliances and self-interest.

If country A is invaded by country B, country C may fight B, but only because it wants country A for itself. A may ally itself temporarily with C to rid itself of B, but may also covertly help B in places to kill as many of C's troops as possible, since it doesn't want C to emerge with any strength. B and C can therefore both lose in the sense they withdraw from the war when it appears unwinnable, and A may consider it has won. Or A may consider it has lost, since B and C have destroyed its infrastructure and left all its people dead or displaced. Or B and C may carve up A between them, so they both win, and only A loses.

 

[AlexanderSen]

The you get the classic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms XD

It is the classic Mexican stand off in Cowboy and Samurai films.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff

It one side vs another until a thrid shows up which makes things interesting that's when everything stalemates and the first person who shoots get shot by the third. Man, I love that sh*t! I am trying to incorporate that into the books I am currently writing.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Hi Freezing point,

Wars can be as complicated as you want them to be. Have a look at history and you'll find as TJ says a multitude of shifting alliances and self-interest.

Look at WW2. When the Germans conquered South East Europe for example, in Yugoslavia they set up a puppet government based I believe on the Croatian Christians - who were then left free to persecute the Serbs because of age-old vendettas (who weren't at the time anti-German). Then the partisan movements that followed in the region you could get in Communist and non-Communist flavours, which complicated things as they would often fight amongst themselves rather then the Germans (oh and the Italians - other different interests involved.) Which meant that it made it difficult for Britain to decide which faction to arm. Arm communists? In theory no they would rather not, but if they were more effective in tying down German troops then that would make more sense...

Quickly gets very murky and out of hand with all sorts of things happening.

 

[Aleph]

Think the Iran/Iraq conflict:

Like A is Iraq, B is Iran, C is America, meddling in the background

 

[tinkerdan]

If only it were that simple::

Think the Iran/Iraq conflict:

Like A is Iraq, B is Iran, C is America, meddling in the background

So A wants something B has and tries every avenue before war until out of sheer frustration they declare war and push into B.

The war is long; longer than expected and C watches and builds a wall so war will not spill over into their territories. But the war has spread out of control and A and B are each weakening and weakening each other and the war shifts to break the wall and C who doesn't want war is now involved whether it wants or not. C looks and though both sides are weak it might be that the spillage is because B has weakened too much; but with no end in sight C makes a decision.

C marches to B's capitol and overthrows the reigning government and then politely but pointedly demand A withdraw.

So from a writers point of view the complications of war are not a problem but an opportunity.

Also: David Weber; in the Honor Series consistently uses the third 'wedge' in war to shift the tides of war.

 

[AlexanderSen]

I was also working on a series called the O series that has twist in battle between three countries. But it's a homage to the Romance of Three Kingdoms and other Asian Classics.

Well, whenever one side starts a war, neighboring countries not involved are weary that might get attacked as well. Thus once an invasion occurs it is opporotunity for the countries not involved to attack the invading/instigating country and attack the weak points of the invading country thus dispersing the forces of the aggresor, thus causing a two front war.

Quote from Wikipedia: "In military terminology, a two-front war is a war in which fighting takes place on two geographically separate fronts. It is usually executed by two or more separate forces simultaneously or nearly simultaneously, in the hope that their opponent will be forced to split their fighting force to deal with both threats, therefore reducing their odds of success. Where one of the contending forces is surrounded, the fronts are called interior lines."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-front_war

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Have you considered the mess in Syria at the moment as an example. The two original forces were the Asad Regime versus the rebels. Then earlier this year along came ISIS splitting them. In essence both original forces were stalemated and their strength depleted. ISIS had a clear road to victory, at least for a while. Then they opened up a new front in Iraq. ISIS there is now being engaged with by both the Iraquis and the Kurds. Suddenly ISIS is fighting on four separate fronts - though there aren't really any fronts per se. To add to their woes the US and some allies are bombing them from the air, weakening them on both Iraq fronts.

But if that's not complex enough you could look to Tripoli.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[mankind2.0]

my interpretation of the original post is you could have A+B both being secretly manipulated by C for Cs gain, possibly weakening both the other two before rolling on into their respective capitals.