Diplomacy Zine -- Chapter Seven EP #227 From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1991 04:10:56 +0000 Issue #227 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: ************************************************************************* "There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one's silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender -- the recognition of his right to one's property. What value or concession did the burglar offer in return? And once the principle of unilateral concessions is accepted as the base of a relationship by both parties, it is only a matter of time before the burglar would seize the rest." ************************************************************************* Chapter One contains: BAGHDAD, AUSTERLITZ, BLITZKRIEG, KING'S GAMBIT, PASSCHENDAELE, GET SOME, DRAGONS, BLACK OCTOBER And is published by uunet!cti1!rlister or rlister@cti.com/Russ Lister Chapter Two contains: REPUBLIC, BORODINO, KHAN, SUTHERLAND And is published by sinhaa@mcmaster.ca/Anand Sinha Chapter Three contains: DAWN PATROL, BERLIN, EL ALAMEIN, SQUALANE, UNGAWE, BRUSILOV OFFENSIVE, CULLODEN, GANDALF'S REVENGE, GOODBYE BLUE SKY And is published by mad-2@kub.nl/Constantijn Wekx Chapter Four contains: DEADLY DAGGERS, MONTREUIL-SUR-MER, FIRE WHEN READY, THUNDERDOME, BEREZINA, FONTENOY And is published by daguru@ucscb.ucsc.edu/Nicholas Jodar Chapter Five contains: DEF CON 5, BORDEL, ERIS, MASADA, YALTA And is published by jjcarette@watami.waterloo.edu/David Gibbs Chapter Six contains: TOKUGAWA, BERLIN WALL, HIROSHIMA, GENGHIS KHAN, SEA LION, VIOLENT PEACE And is published by mike@suna.computation.umist.ac.uk/Mike Reddy Chapter Seven contains: HELM'S DEEP, GROUND ZERO, GIBRALTAR, TIBERIUS, BETELGEUSE, IRON CROSS, DEF CON 4, OPERATION DESERT SHIELD ------------- Chapter Seven ------------- Table of Contents: Some letters from Steve Robinson and my responses to them. The article "And the Winner Is..." Letter from Leonard Dickens ---- From shr@clemson.clemson.edu/Steve Robinson: > The ground war will be a lot shorter than expected. At this point, > Saddam has lost about 50% of his tanks and other ground weapons. We > could easily roll into Baghdad in a few days. We are trying to win the > war without entering Iraq or Kuwait, and I think there is a 51% chance > that his own people will kill him and a ground war will never occur. That seems overly optimistic to me. The figures I am hearing say that about 1/3 of the weapons sent to the Kuwaiti theater are damaged or destroyed. This does not mention the forces which have never left the central part of Iraq. The extensive (500,000+) minefields and fortifications Saddam has in place will take time to overcome. There is absolutely no question that we *will* overcome them, but it is relatively slow going. As to rolling into Baghdad, this would be bloody but worth doing. It would also be easier and more useful than rolling into Kuwait City. I dearly hope that his own people will kill him and do it in a way that makes it clear that it was his own people who did it. I'm not squeemish about our doing it, but it will make dealing with Iraq and the rest of the region easier if he is assasinated by one of his own rather than killed through military or covert activity. The events reported this morning about what is being said on Iraqi radio make me optimistic that Saddam at least knows that he will not be given the opportunity to inflict the large numbers of casualties he has been counting on in a ground war. We will continue to pound the pudding out of him from the air. Only when the use of ground forces can be accomplished in much greater safety will we send them in. He may well die or capitulate before this happens. The offer made on the radio is clearly completely inadequate. Saddam says that he will accept *one* of the twelve UN resolutions and leave Kuwait **IF** (1) The other 11 resolutions are given up, (2) We just take his word (choke!) and move our forces out of the region first, (3) The Palestinian thing is linked to his withdrawal, and (4) the fate of Kuwait is on the bargaining table too. He doesn't say that the Kuwaiti government will be restored, we would be leaving this monster in power, and we would leave him most of his military goodies intact. This is unacceptable. The withdrawal must be in deed not merely in word, and it must be *unconditional*! Furthermore, there must be absolutely *no* letup of the war preperations until the troops are on their way home, and we should move in to supervise the withdrawal. One more thing, the Iraquis must remove their own mines and traps. Once they have said they are gone, we should force march their Republican Guards troops along the entire area and give them the chance to prove it. Boy, I sound tough today! I've heard enough about the command bunker that had all of the civilians in it. The thing was originally a bomb shelter, but it had clearly been converted to a military purpose. Saddam has long ago proven his willingness to use his own people as human shields for PR purposes. This may have backfired on him though. He promised his people that the thing could take a nuclear blast. Two conventional bombs were more than enough. As a matter of fact, only one went inside. The other hit the door and didn't penetrate. His people must feel a great deal less safe now. Instead of riding a wave of world sentiment about the bombing into a position to name the terms of his withdrawal as he is attempting to do now, he may find increased pressure from his own people to end it quickly. We are perhaps too civilized for our own good. We go to *enormous* lengths to avoid civilian loss of life while Saddam launches Scuds into the cities of noncombatants, and who do some of the news people try to make out to be the bad guys? Us! It makes me sick and angry. I am very glad to note that the American public knows better and is mad at the leftist press too. Well enough for now. Steve My response: "That seems overly optimistic to me. The figures I am hearing say that about 1/3 of the weapons sent to the Kuwaiti theater are damaged or destroyed." You are forgetting that 80% of his weapons are in the theatre. About 50% of these have been damaged or destroyed. Any large weapons still operational when we begin the ground assault will only get a few shots before we locate and destroy them. "The extensive (500,000+) minefields and fortifications Saddam has in place will take time to overcome." The minefields and fortifications are in Kuwait. So let's attack Iraq instead. "I dearly hope that his own people will kill him and do it in a way that makes it clear that it was his own people who did it." That is our goal. It may well happen. Cross your fingers! "The events reported this morning about what is being said on Iraqi radio make me optimistic that Saddam at least knows that he will not be given the opportunity to inflict the large numbers of casualties he has been counting on in a ground war." More importantly, his people began to celebrate when they heard he was going to surrender. I'm sure that people who are considering overthrowing him will keep this in mind. "We will continue to pound the pudding out of him from the air. Only when the use of ground forces can be accomplished in much greater safety will we send them in. He may well die or capitulate before this happens." Exactly right. Life is so much easier now that our air weapons are almost as accurate as our land weapons. "He promised his people that the thing could take a nuclear blast. Two conventional bombs were more than enough." Actually, it took two smart bombs. It is our smart bombs and improved accuracy that we now get from dumb bombs that is making our air war so effective. My favorite theory about this bunker is that Saddam DID NOT offer up ordinary civilians as a propaganda ploy. Instead he foolishly used the bomb shelter for the families of some of his top people. So after they were killed, the survivors pushed him to surrender, which he sort of did two days later. Note that my neat theory does not say our government knew about the elite families, our intelligence isn't that good. "We are perhaps too civilized for our own good. We go to *enormous* lengths to avoid civilian loss of life" Actually, it is a good tactic to avoid civilian deaths. History shows that bombing just ticks off civilians while it demoralizes soldiers. Eric Klien From shr@clemson.clemson.edu/Steve Robinson: > "That seems overly optimistic to me. The figures I am hearing say that > about 1/3 of the weapons sent to the Kuwaiti theater are damaged or > destroyed." > > You are forgetting that 80% of his weapons are in the theatre. About > 50% of these have been damaged or destroyed. Any large weapons still > operational when we begin the ground assault will only get a few > shots before we locate and destroy them. I didn't forget. We have just heard different things about how many of the weapons in the theater have been destroyed. Actually, as I write this, the estimates I am hearing are closer to the 1/2 mark. Due to the dug in positions and bunkers, it is really hard to tell with accuracy from the air. I believe our guys will go in on the ground quite soon now. > The minefields and fortifications are in Kuwait. So let's attack > Iraq instead. Granted and agreed, but the troops in Kuwait will likely have to be hit eventually if only to stop revenge killings of Kuwaiti civilians by the Iraqi military there. I still feel that the Iraqis should be required to clear these fields as a prerequisite to a cessation of hostilities. Then let's make them prove it. March them through. > More importantly, his people began to celebrate when they heard he > was going to surrender. I'm sure that people who are considering > overthrowing him will keep this in mind. This may have been only a feeling of immense relief that the war and its hardships might end soon. Whether this will parley into strong support for eliminating the true source of the war and the hardship is still to be seen. There are reports coming out of Iraq now that there has been at least one mass demonstration of opposition to Saddam and that 10 members of the Baath party were killed for trying to stop it. I hope that the people who are looking at overthrowing him will feel encouraged by all this and go for it. > "He promised his people that the thing could take a nuclear blast. > Two conventional bombs were more than enough." > > Actually, it took two smart bombs. It is our smart bombs and > improved accuracy that we now get from dumb bombs that is making our > air war so effective. My favorite theory about this bunker is that > Saddam DID NOT offer up ordinary civilians as a propaganda ploy. > Instead he foolishly used the bomb shelter for the families of some > of his top people. So after they were killed, the survivors pushed > him to surrender, which he sort of did two days later. Note that my > neat theory does not say our government knew about the elite > families, our intelligence isn't that good. I was using the term "conventional bombs" to differentiate them from nuclear weapons. My point was that the blast from one or two bombs loaded with conventional high explosive were abundantly sufficient to devastate a structure that Saddam had assured his people would sustain a nuclear blast. What does this do to his credibility among Iraqis when he tells them that they can win or that they are inflicting great damage on their enemy? It can't have helped him. I like your theory. It is the first that I've heard of it. I watch less news lately than I did a few weeks ago. Life must go on, so I skim more and read and watch in depth less. It would indeed be a lot to ask to think that we could know just how many people are in any given building and, even more incredibly, who they are. We aren't targeting civilians anyway, so knowing they were there probably would have *saved* them. > Actually, it is a good tactic to avoid civilian deaths. History > shows that bombing just ticks off civilians while it demoralizes > soldiers. What I was getting at was that our efforts are not appreciated by the Iraqi population or by our own media. As for ticking off civilians, I doubt that the Iraqis could hate us more than they do now. The civilians are demoralized too; just note the celebration when the reports came out that the bombing might end. We risk our pilots to minimize civilian loss of life and non-military property damage, and it is treated as a premeditated crime if we cause some colateral damage and all this while Saddam launches Scuds at Tel Aviv and Haifa. I know what we are doing is right, and I support it, but it is easy to wonder just a bit whether we might just be a little *too* concerned about civilian losses. Name me one other country in all the world across all history which has ever tried as hard as we are to fight a war without hurting people. Well, enough for now. Steve My response: >As for ticking off civilians, I doubt that the Iraqis could hate >us more than they do now. Not true. Surveys of Iraqis show they hate Saddam, not us. Carpet bombing of their cities would change this. "and it is treated as a premeditated crime if we cause some colateral damage and all this while Saddam launches Scuds at Tel Aviv and Haifa." Again, the Iraqis really don't believe we are bombing their homes on purpose. Don't believe the Iraqi controlled media. It is very important to have the Iraqis on our side so the heavily armed Iraqi population doesn't shoot at us much when we takeover Baghdad. "Name me one other country in all the world across all history which has ever tried as hard as we are to fight a war without hurting people." None. This is the first war in a long time where civilian casualites were avoided. I think it is a very smart strategy on our part. Get the enemy population on your side. That little riot a few days ago is a small sample of the dividends this strategy can provide. Eric Klien From shr@clemson.clemson.edu/Steve Robinson: > Not true. Surveys of Iraqis show they hate Saddam, not us. Carpet > bombing of their cities would change this. Yes, it might at that. Still, they know that we support Israel, and the avowed purpose of the majority of Arabs is to see Israel cease to exist. This brings a lot of hate. There is also a lot of jealousy due to our power and position. Middle easterners in general are prideful to a fault and will hate whoever is number 1 as long as it isn't them. > Again, the Iraqis really don't believe we are bombing their homes on purpose. > Don't believe the Iraqi controlled media. It is very important to have the > Iraqis on our side so the heavily armed Iraqi population doesn't shoot at > us much when we takeover Baghdad. Many of them don't believe that we are bombing their homes on purpose, but some do. The Iraqi controlled media is all the Iraqis have to go by besides what they see and hear for themselves in the streets. In any case, they know that we are bombing their country, and that is bound to cause a lot of resentment in any case. They hate Saddam (some of them), but they would kill us too if they could. What I was talking about though was our own news people treating colateral damage as criminal. Just listen to the news people when there has been bombing near the El Rashid Hotel! Don't they squeal! They chose to send reporters there in the middle of a war zone. The targets must be hit wherever they are. If we treated any place where newspeople set up as a sanctuary of some sort, things would bog down quickly, much to the detriment of our troops. > None. This is the first war in a long time where civilian casualites were > avoided. I think it is a very smart strategy on our part. Get the > enemy population on your side. That little riot a few days ago is a small > sample of the dividends this strategy can provide. If our purpose is to get Saddam killed by his own people or at least deposed and humiliated (as I believe it is and should be), we are indeed doing some things right. It is probably more important to depose Saddam than to kill a few more of his planes, therefore making a big point of not hitting the planes he has put on residential city streets was smart. If we could get them without too much colateral damage, that would be different, but planes cary aviation fuel, and explosions that close to civilian buildings would be very destructive. Land forces are another thing entirely, and if we send ground troops into Bahgdad, Basra, etc. either during or just after the war, they could safely destroy these planes without endangering civilians. We should, as part of the settlement after the war, dismantle and cart away as much of his military stuff as we can from tanks to pistols. We should search and destroy every vestige of his nuclear, chemical, and biological capability. All we should leave Iraq is enough of the oldest and least reliable and effective weapons to defend itself against an opportunist attack from Iran or Syria. My response: "and the avowed purpose of the majority of Arabs is to see Israel cease to exist." Just the avowed purpose. Only the Palestinians are really pushing for this. The rest of the Arabs have learned that Arab neighbors such as Saddam are the real threat. CNN just reported that there was a big sigh of relief in Saudi Arabia when Saddam failed to meet the latest deadline. They want to chase him to Baghdad and overthrow him. "There is also a lot of jealousy due to our power and position." I didn't say we are loved by most of them. In fact, before this crisis they barely tolerated us. But after we eliminate Saddam, a lot of Arabs will love us. The Kuwaitis and Saudis especially who were former major supporters of the PLO. "What I was talking about though was our own news people treating colateral damage as criminal." True. I never said our media was perfect. Instead, I said it was left-wing. "If we could get them without too much colateral damage, that would be different, but planes cary aviation fuel, and explosions that close to civilian buildings would be very destructive." We could always land a few troops, drag the planes a couple hundred feet and then blow them up. I wouldn't be surprised if we did this considering how expensive airplanes are to replace. "We should, as part of the settlement after the war, dismantle and cart away as much of his military stuff as we can from tanks to pistols." We are trying to stop a war settlement so we have a chance to blow everything up. Last I heard, neary 50% of his artillery was declared destroyed, another 20% is probably damaged. "We should search and destroy every vestige of his nuclear, chemical, and biological capability." This was already done. All we should leave Iraq is enough of the oldest and least reliable and effective weapons to defend itself against an opportunist attack from Iran or Syria." Both Iran and Syria are scum, they are the Stalins of the mideast and should be eliminated if possible. Eric Klien From shr@clemson.clemson.edu/Steve Robinson: > Just the avowed purpose. Only the Palestinians are really pushing for this. > The rest of the Arabs have learned that Arab neighbors such as Saddam are > the real threat. CNN just reported that there was a big sigh of relief in > Saudi Arabia when Saddam failed to meet the latest deadline. They want to > chase him to Baghdad and overthrow him. > > I didn't say we are loved by most of them. In fact, before this crisis > they barely tolerated us. But after we eliminate Saddam, a lot of Arabs > will love us. The Kuwaitis and Saudis especially who were former major > supporters of the PLO. This great love for the US will happen all right, but it will be short lived, especially if our troops must stay for a while stabilizing things. Soon, the resentment for Israel's defenders and the attackers of fellow Arabs will set in, and it will be bad feeling as usual. As you say, the Kuwaitis and Saudis and others supported the PLO heavily, and the PLO wants Israel dead. Support is support; none of them like Israel. > "If we could get them without too much colateral damage, that would be > different, but planes cary aviation fuel, and explosions that close to > civilian buildings would be very destructive." > > We could always land a few troops, drag the planes a couple hundred > feet and then blow them up. I wouldn't be surprised if we did this > considering how expensive airplanes are to replace. What I was getting at is that ground troops can effectively destroy planes when they are parked in such areas without hurting civilians whereas planes, even when equipped with smart weapons, cannot. If an explosion is necessary to do sufficient damage to the plane, then your plan is fine. If not, then what I had envisioned would be enough. The fuel tanks could be drained or simply avoided, and the plane could be cut up and destroyed by small arms fire such as machine gun fire. Heck, ground troops could do the job with a fire ax. Planes are of necessity lightly built and relatively easy to dismember. Any expensive, hard to replace, parts such as electronics and engine parts could be carried away or burned. > We are trying to stop a war settlement so we have a chance to blow > everything up. Last I heard, neary 50% of his artillery was declared > destroyed, another 20% is probably damaged. A lot of the destroyed stuff would turn out to be in the damaged or usable categories during the long recovery period after a the war is over. For example: part A is destroyed on gun 1, part B is destroyed on gun 2. Both guns are unusable and effectively destroyed. Given time though, part A can be salvaged from gun 2 and installed on gun 1 making one usable gun from two destroyed ones. In many cases the destroyed parts will be low tech stuff, and they will simply make their own replacement parts. We will not be able to avoid a settlement altogether. Saddam is running scared now and will fall all over himself to give up soon no matter what he calls it. We should delay this as long as possible, and when the war finally *must* stop, we should go over his military stuff bit by bit and either utterly destroy or physically remove every bit. > "We should search and destroy every vestige of his nuclear, chemical, > and biological capability." > > This was already done. We did a good job of halting research and production and probably distribution too from the air, but we can't know all of what he was doing until we see it for ourselves on the ground. He has some weapons grade uranium somewhere. It is speculated that it is on one of the transport planes he sent to Iran. It could also be in a bunker or in the ruins of his nuclear plant. We need to find out and take it away. His ability to produce biological and chemical weapons is probably stopped for now, but maybe not entirely. The facilities needed for either of these are not all that complicated, large, or difficult to hide. Also the scientists who ran these before are likely to be able to reproduce some of it. Finally, Saddam has thousands of mines and shells with chemical and biological weapons in them. These must be found and destroyed too. That's what I meant by "every vestige." > Both Iran and Syria are scum, they are the Stalins of the mideast and > should be eliminated if possible. Agreed. It isn't likely to become possible anytime soon though, because they won't be willing to give us a good excuse. My response: "As you say, the Kuwaitis and Saudis and others supported the PLO heavily, and the PLO wants Israel dead." The gulf states will never support the PLO again. The Kuwait ambassador just said that the Palestinians should look for new leaders. "We will not be able to avoid a settlement altogether. Saddam is running scared now and will fall all over himself to give up soon no matter what he calls it." Surprise! Bush beat Saddam's army before he met our conditions. Saddam still hasn't met our original conditions to personally agree to all 12 resolutions. He may never do this. "Finally, Saddam has thousands of mines and shells with chemical and biological weapons in them." This may not be true. I'm sure he still has chemical artillery shells but they degrade over time. Eric Klien From shr@clemson.clemson.edu/Steve Robinson: > The gulf states will never support the PLO again. The Kuwait > ambassador just said that the Palestinians should look for new > leaders. Saddam was the "ally" of the PLO, not the cause. The gulf states are still anti Israel and probably always will be. Give this thing time to blow over a bit and the PLO will get support from most of them again, under the table at first then openly. The Kuwaiti ambassador should be expected to say this because Kuwait is the nation most hurt by the agression of the dictator that the PLO allied with. I'd like to think that someone else would one day speak for the Palestinians instead of the PLO. They would certainly gain a lot more credibility and bargaining strength if that happened. I hope I'm surprised; I'd love to be surprised, but I'm pessimistic on this one. > Surprise! Bush beat Saddam's army before he met our conditions. > Saddam still hasn't met our original conditions to personally > agree to all 12 resolutions. He may never do this. Surprise is right! I fully expected us to mop him over quickly, but the utter collapse of even his Republican Guards without even a decent fight is surprising. As I understand it, the acceptance of the 12 resolutions is one of the conditions for continuance of the cease-fire. If Saddam or his successor doesn't agree, we should start up again and see if that doesn't do it. I understand that Saddam still has at least two untouched divisions around Baghdad. These would make worthwhile targets. Now that it has stopped though, public opinion would be pretty unfavorable for starting up again. I hope Saddam doesn't know that. Meanwhile, we should continue to drop grenades in all of the abandoned tanks we find to deny him the chance to use them later. We should take a bunch home for study too, and for target practice. Nothing like the real thing to practice on. Their "defense minister" is already talking about a complete makeover for their air defenses. I really hope the world has sense enough not to help the creep this time. > This may not be true. I'm sure he still has chemical artillery > shells but they degrade over time. Thank heavens. How long does it take though? Years, perhaps decades, anyway. Those chemical mines will kill people for a long time before the stuff breaks down, and even then the explosives will still be there. The Iraquis are already saying how a lot of the maps to the minefields are missing. I'm sure a lot of the fields were never mapped in the first place, and the bad guys will hold out on as many maps of the ones that were mapped as possible. Our best hope on this one is a takeover in Baghdad by someone a lot more sympathetic who will make a good faith best effort to get the maps for the Kuwaitis. My response: "The gulf states are still anti Israel and probably always will be. Give this thing time to blow over a bit and the PLO will get support from most of them again, under the table at first then openly." You're wrong. The gulf states have always been reluctant supporters of the PLO, now that the PLO has backed Saddam, they will give the PLO no support at all. Remember that if the gulf states and the Palestinians were true friends, the Palestinians would not have been so helpful in the takeover of Kuwait. "I'd like to think that someone else would one day speak for the Palestinians instead of the PLO." At the minimum, Arafat has to go. He has lost all his credibility. Even King Hussein was not as badly hurt by this crisis as he was. "I understand that Saddam still has at least two untouched divisions around Baghdad." Actually, at least one quarter of his troops are still intact. These are mainly infantry divisions though. All those planes that we have flying are picking new targets in case Saddam drags his feet in the surrender talks. "Now that it has stopped though, public opinion would be pretty unfavorable for starting up again." True. This means that if Bush begins an attack again, it will probably be extremely severe. Note that we have been rebuilding some Iraqi airports for free recently so we don't have a slow 3,000 sortie rate in future attacks. We also now have the Kuwaiti airports. "Meanwhile, we should continue to drop grenades in all of the abandoned tanks we find to deny him the chance to use them later." Actually, I think destroying the tanks is a dumb idea. We should have carted them all off for target practice. I know we are carting some of them off, but I can't understand why we didn't take them all. "Thank heavens. How long does it take though?" I don't know. But it is worth noting that his troops were afraid to use chemical weapons against us. They were afraid we would respond in kind. "Our best hope on this one is a takeover in Baghdad by someone a lot more sympathetic who will make a good faith best effort to get the maps for the Kuwaitis." It sounds like Basra has just fallen and troops are going from Basra to Baghdad. Saddam may fall within days. I hope so. Eric Klien The following is from Diplomacy World #60 and was scribed by snow@cololasp.bitnet/Martin Snow And the Winner Is... By Pete Clark "Any country can win in Diplomacy." "All the Great Powers are basically equal." These are two of the basic premises of Diplomacy. I've often wondered just how true they really were. Certainly anyone can win, but does everyone win about the same number of times? Are the countries equal; do all the countries do about the same over time? I finally decided to test these honored principles with a quantitative study--one that was as broad as possible. So, using Everything supply center charts, I gathered the information for my database. 300 games of Play-by-Mail Diplomacy played between 1982 and the present were included in the study. I felt that such a number would eliminate varying player skills from the variables that might affect the outcome. Also, only the games considered "regular" and ending after 1905 (unless some country won outright before then) were included. I decided not to attempt to judge the reasonableness of the draws, and counted them as recorded. TABLE 1 Total Total W 2w 3w 4w 5w Centers Years draws Austria 9844 1843 20 6 27 15 3 England 13512 2305 21 15 50 14 2 France 16203 2499 22 14 42 15 3 Germany 11430 1987 20 11 32 11 2 Italy 12308 2193 11 10 20 8 1 Russia 16287 2295 33 16 32 10 2 Turkey 14600 2349 21 14 49 15 2 Total 94184 15451 148 43 84 22 3 Average 13455 2207 21 12 36 13 2 TABLE 2 Average Number of Centers by Year Power 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Austria 4.5 4.3 4.8 5.0 5.4 5.5 6.9 7.4 England 4.3 4.5 4.9 5.2 5.8 6.8 8.3 9.0 France 4.8 5.1 5.6 6.3 6.8 7.5 8.7 8.9 Germany 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.6 6.0 6.3 7.0 7.5 Italy 4.1 4.4 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.6 6.7 7.5 Russia 5.5 5.8 6.2 6.6 7.6 9.0 9.5 10.1 Turkey 4.2 4.3 4.5 5.2 5.8 7.6 9.2 9.3 Up