New article on a defense organization in the Eastern Mediterranean by Ownerzmcown and myself. A work in progress currently. Caeruleus 04:48, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
I hope you don't think I'm copying you but I'm intending to make a similar organization exclusively for the democratic (and communist) successors to Warsaw Pact nations to oppose the Siberians. I wouldn't have a problem with them being on good terms with the Mediterranean Association though. Arstar 05:18, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Caeruleus 05:41, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Here we go. I've had this idea probably for a lot longer than you have, Caer. So I aint copying, wait...actually it wouldn't be copying at all since the only thing they'd share in common is they don't like the Siberians. So nevermind then. Arstar 06:00, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Any opposition to graduation? Caeruleus 19:27, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... not to the idea, but a lot of it still seems incomplete. I'd prefer to see more of that done before graduation. Lordganon 21:31, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
The naming of various officials are the only thing that haven't been done. The international relations section will remain blank until someone chooses to formulate their article's position to the MDL, since it is a new organization. Caeruleus 21:39, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
That will do then. Lordganon 22:05, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
If there are no further objections, can someone please graduate this? Caeruleus 01:54, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Not to rain on your parade but I'd like to see the international relations section filled in. After that I'll be more than happy to graduate it should no other objections occur. Arstar 03:37, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
As Caer said, it's kinda hard to fill that in when no one else has an opinion yet because it is not canon/not established yet. Believe you me, after both happen there will be reactions ;)
Article created by Lukesams. Not sure what can realistically be done with this article other than saying the NFL does not exist anymore. Might have to obsolete it. Mitro 04:23, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
A private mercenary organization in the military field formed after Doomsday.--Emperor of Trebizond 01:24, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
I hate to say it but it's not really plausible for this sort of community project. An army fleeing to a small island and turning it into a fortress with spotlights and such? Defending from who? Being hired by who? For what purpose? I'm sorry but its a tad, um, unfit for this sort of thing. Arstarpool 08:34, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
There are such real organizations in the world. Who? For What Purpose? Defending it from who? The small island you described is just barely large enough it can be used for this. Besides, it's not one army, but ex-soldier survivors looking for a job that were brought together by someone whose fortune was generally unaffected by Doomsday. See the talk page for more. --Emperor of Trebizond 12:10, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
You don't understand. There is nobody except the Australians and the South Americans that had fortunes after Doomsday. Trade collapsed, and with it order, so there would be no jobs for a long, long time. You can't just keep things vague like "they meet under the table" in this sort of thing. Everything needs reason. And there are not such"real organizations" in the world. Sure, there are the New York Rangers, but they were founded on practicality Arstarpool 19:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
How do you contact the most prestigious and the best law firms and banks on the planet? Does that have a reason? No, it's awfully vague. You have to have a lot of money, and many important people contact such organizations "under the table". Investors in Australia and South America could have private reasons for funding the PRMDS.--Emperor of Trebizond 16:30, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
Arstarpool, you're comparing two very different things. The SAC and ANZC are nations. The PRMDS is a corporation. Corporations are a dimension we've failed to explore thus far on this timeline. Just because nations collapse doesn't mean corporations would also collapse, and the same goes with how prosperous they are. Many corporations, pre-Doomsday, were well equipped, wealthy, and highly connected. It's very possible that several large, multinational corporations would survive Doomsday relatively intact and be able to reorganize post-Doomsday. Or, another way to look at this is that the post-Doomsday world is a survival of the fittest world. The stronger you are, the wealthier you are. The PRMDS would be formed from various military groups that survived Doomsday, were well trained, and kept their equipment. At first, they would be glorified raiders, but later on, once the states of the Black Sea became interconnected with the rest of the world, they would become a legitimate mercenary force with global reach. Caeruleus 16:39, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
I'm really impressed. That sums up my concept of the PRMDS flawlessly.--Emperor of Trebizond 17:35, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
The SAC is not a nation for one, and neither of you have read enough and don't fully understand how everything works. There aren't investors in the northern hemisphere, where buisness is still at a very basic. Exceptions would be the Celts or the Alpines or the Siberians or maybe even the Nordics but they aren't going to be funding a private militia because they need dirty work done or something. World travel as you portray it is not how it really is, so they would not be launching missions across the world. This "world" isn't how ours is minus the US and Europe and the Soviets, its a world where you can find a degree of normalcy in the Pacific and South America and pretty much everywhere else is struggling at the moment including places like the Alpine Confederation and the Celtic Alliance and Canada and Siberia. If this was reorganized and renamed into something of a local militia it would be more plausible.
The worst part is is that you speak of nations that aren't part of the timeline yet, the Turkey page is still a proposal and isn't going anywhere for a looong time...so this page would remain a proposal until Elazig and Turkey are graduated. Arstarpool 19:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
What does it matter that your opinion that this would remain a proposal until Elazig and Turkey are graduated? I haven't a problem with that. The PRMDS could've been planned before Doomsday but significantly affected by the results of Doomsday, which made it by far a more possible, attractive, and plausible venture by whoever planned it. They can travel locally to the East or to the West (Furthest to Africa and furthest west to Central Asia). Limited range, but more than enough within that to keep them busy.--Emperor of Trebizond 19:46, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
I know the SAC is a collection of nations, but it fits into the same category. You're also misinterpreting what this is. This isn't a typical pre-Doomsday corporation that you just go and "invest" in. A more apt comparison would be to the Knights Templar or Knights of Rhodes. These were wealthy, independent, private mercenary organizations that had large amounts of capital and small amounts of territory in which they are based, similar to the PRMDS. They don't need people to invest in them. They acquire their own funds, or, in a post-Doomsday world, simply obtain success in survival which essential means they pay for themselves because in eastern Europe, financial systems broke down post-Doomsday so the typical dynamics of a money-based economy would not apply to as great of an extent.
Also, you vastly overestimate the necessary level of stability for this to be plausible. The Alpines, ANZC, SAC, Nordics, Celts, Siberians, Koreans and Japanese are all stable enough. They don't need to be prosperous to be able to pay for mercenaries. African warlords OTL are able to pay for mercenaries, and we all know how poor and unstable they are. The chaos of eastern Europe actually provides a ripe enviroment for them to develop because, like I said, they could start off as glorified bandits, grow wealthy through pillaging, and establish a semi-legitimate international operation by the late 2000s. This article is plausible, though they may not be deploying to Africa until the late 2000s. Caeruleus 19:52, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
Arstarpool has a thing about rushing articles through quickly so don't feel like you have to hurry. I defiantly think this article can work. After Doomsday there would be a lot of "guns for hire" popping up around the world. Also in the anarchy who says they need money? they could raid an armory get all the weapons they need. I'll try not get too philosophical here but money in the post Doomsday world is just pieces of paper. Major currencies would collapse on the commodities market (or whats left of it) and food, water and other necessities would become the new currency. Perhaps now that the situation has stabilized the ANZC Dollar or the currency of South America might appeal to them but initially its the necessities of life that ruled the day. GOPZACK 19:54, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
Why don't they use the already existing ruins and temples as bases? That would be more practical then demolishing them (which would be pretty hard post-Doomsday) and building new bases when materials would be scarse. Or they could build using ruins as foundations into new structures. Arstarpool 03:36, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
I suppose those temples would be small, ruined, and in their way, probably too unstable to use for much. They seem to be in pretty bad shape--the product of thousands of years..But I've seen remote ruins turned into secure monasteries before, so it wouldn't surprise me. It could also be a waste of explosive. I think I will probably consider this idea.--Emperor of Trebizond 09:35, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
Took Arstarpool's idea into effect. I agree that the PRMDS could probably use the foundations of the ruins for their current buildings.--Emperor of Trebizond 02:55, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
This article has been a proposal for a long time with little work done to it. Can it be graduated? Or is someone willing to adopt it. If not we should probably consider marking it as obsolete. Mitro 04:15, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
I vote we graduate it. I've been waiting for someone to raise objections, but none have come up. And the only thing stopping graduation before was a reference to the Sultanate of Turkey article, which is now part of canon.--Emperor of Trebizond 19:23, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
Article created by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Adopted and will resume work on it soon. --XterrorX 10:44, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
This article has been a proposal for a long time with little work done to it. Unless someone is willing to adopt it we should probably consider marking it as obsolete. Mitro 04:12, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
An article created by me about the most important OTL kingdom on Uganda, which got independence during the Uganda Bush War. Fedelede 00:47, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Looks good so far but I don't think there would be such a rapid growth of Ganda religion and culture by 2005. Maybe 2015 would be a better target date. Arstarpool 00:37, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Another old proposal, what are the plans for this article? Mitro 04:18, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about this Fed, just trying to get some movement on some old proposals. Actually this article is not that bad and may be ready for graduation, but what about Arstar's objection? Mitro 16:04, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
He included his suggestion. Caeruleus 21:04, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
It would be great "business" for the United Communities; with your permission could the members be tried in Niagara Falls in front the United Communities Post-War Committee? Arstar[talk] 00:05, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
Why would the good folks in Bulgaria send people to stand trial in another continent in Niagara Falls by an untested "United Communities Post-War Committee" that only has members in Southern Ontario & North-Central United States, in the post-Doomsday world? If anything they'd go before a LoN war crimes tribunal. --Zack 00:12, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
For starters, we're only talking about a single member, Georgi Pirinski, Jr. He is a Bulgarian-American, born in New York, and has been involved with communist politics in Bulgaria since the 1950s. I figure that someone in America may want him as a patsy for the war - basically, for war crimes, but tried in the USA due to his citizenship, even though he renounced it in the 70s. Something along the lines of him not being a Bulgarian, so they can't try him (in their opinions) in a Rhodopian court of law.
Glad someone finally answered, but the United Communities are a bit far. Personally, I was hoping for a member of the Dixie Alliance, though most states on the Atlantic coast would work. Heck, Plymouth or the Outer Lands would be nice.
But barring no good answers, I will be either giving him up to an area state or having Rhodope try him anyway.
I realize this is not "finished" yet, but considering that no article is ever finished in the true sense of the word and so far no one has objected to this ongoing war, are there any objections to graduation? Mitro 04:11, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I can't let it until I finish writing up the war. Almost done, if it helps. Lordganon 05:04, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
I feel that this is now complete. Objections to graduation?
But that is my point though. The LUAS is a canon article and pretty much seems similar to this current proposal. If the proposal is graduated, than why would this organization even be proposed if Superior was already a member of the UC in 2007? Mitro 21:28, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
yeah but, LUAS does not even exist yet its a bill purposed by Harold Duke some right-winger in the Congress of Superior. With that said, I really don't know Superior would be a member now that I think about it. In fact I don't know why the other members would want Superior in it. Superior would dominate all decisions made in the UC. --GOPZACK 03:17, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Arstar became caretaker of Superior, but he may not have been aware of the LUAS (which if I recall correctly was Lahbas' proposal). BrianD 03:49, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Are their any articles he's not a caretaker of? ;) I think your right Lahbas did write that article. --GOPZACK 03:55, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
How does one become a "caretaker" of an article he has not edited? Arstar was appointed to look out for vandalism and "trolls" (which I assume are obnoxious articles offensive and totally irrelevant). I am hard-pressed to keep my own articles updated, much less hop around fixing elements of other folks' articles.
Apart from that, the UC seems workable. It is not the grand scheme to bring the USA back under a new umbrella (an idea I like, by the way). The UC is a locally based organization, and probably would have been founded some time before anyone knew of the LoN. --SouthWriter 04:36, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
He asked Lahbas for permission to adopt Superior (and Wisconsin). BrianD 14:57, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Did Lahbas grant him permission? GOPZACK 01:19, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Zack, yes on Wisconsin, no on Superior. The latter was my misunderstanding. I got Lahbas and Superior mixed up with Mjdoch and Celtic Alliance. Lahbas did give Arstar permission to be caretaker of Wisconsin (with a couple of conditions), and Arstar did in fact ask him for Superior. According to their talk pages Lahbas never responded back in regards to Superior. So as far as I can tell, Lahbas is still caretaker for Superior.
Ah, I don't see any radical edits by Arstar on the Superior article so we need not worry about that for now. I still think this alliance can't work with Superior in it. Pennsylvania (if graduated) will be weaker then Arstar's original article, Toledo is in decent shape, Niagara Falls is small and London doesn't have much of an army so Superior would basically run that show with an iron fist. GOPZACK 01:22, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
According to the adoption rules somebody must ask somebody who hasn't edited in three months or more to adopt a page. If the editor does not respond in a week the article is theirs. Other than a few talk page related edits within the three months Lahbas did not edit, meaning that I am the current caretaker of Superior. However I will return it to Lahbas should he request for it to be returned. Arstarpool 03:37, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
What do you plan to do with Superior? BrianD 20:55, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
While it is true that someone can adopt an unedited article the article cannot be changed based on QSS. However, it can be continued in a different direction from the last chronological reference (new item in "real time" in most cases). It will have to confirm with the histories of other related articles in order to stay viable as well. I suspect that Arstar has no real drastic changes in mind, though. SouthWriter 15:39, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Okay guys are there any objections to graduation? Arstar[talk] 06:09, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
nothing has been decided yet--Owen1983 10:39, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
It should wait until the situation in southern Ontario is decided before graduation.
Umm ok how 'bout now? Arstar 09:14, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
I figure it's ok now, but I'd still rather you waited. Might be a plan to take out the Celtic Alliance part too - honestly, I cannot see them doing that. Canada yes, for one reason or another, but not the Alliance.
I want you to jot down a quick list of everything I should add to the article. The members section has a special note saying it will be fully updated when all the Ontario city-states are completed and for the meantime it is non canon. The Celts are pretty much the super-power of Europe and they joined after the Saguenay War to give the UC some "credibility" and to open the door for more regional nations to join. They amount to an observer/honorary member status, it was a way of some of the member states saying "thanks" for the Saguenay War stuff and to make sure that Superior stays tied down and doesn't start another war or something. But in terms of them being active? No, they just have a guy or ten there just out of being nice. Arstar 17:20, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I can't think of anything off-hand, other than changing the Treaty of Manchester date to May (the ceasefire is April) and adding a line about Kingston having refused to join, viewing it as some sort of Superior puppetry, or something similar.
I don't think the Celts would join. They would view it as a regional organization, which it is. Canada would likely join, but the Celts are in Europe and wouldn't need the UC for anything. It would just be a pointless expense to maintain an ambassador.--Oerwinde 20:53, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Honestly I don't see how it can be puppetry of Superior if Superior wasn't a founding member. But why would it hurt to "maintain" an ambassador? They just "tag along" with the Canadian ambassadors. I imagined it as being that the Celts are observing the politics of the area and reporting it to the LoN. It's really not that far fetched. If Virginia, a second/third world nation can have an ambassador in Tonga in the Pacific than why can't the Celtic Alliance, a first world nation maintain one observer ambassador in a city only about 2,000 miles away? Arstar 21:28, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, have I justified why the Celts are in or is it just keeping the article from being graduated? Arstar 20:53, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
I just see it like if the Celts tried to join the West African Union. What would be the point? My point on cost is this: If its a UN type organization, membership would imply fees for the upkeep of the organization, funding administrative staff, sub-organizations etc. If it has any sort of peacekeeping force, then membership would likely require volunteering troops and such. Its not just sending an ambassador.--Oerwinde 09:48, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
Oer, the CA is the world's 7th most largest economy. I'm sure they can maintain all the costs. They're in no way one of the "struggling to survive" nations we see so often today. So I'm going to graduate and archive this article asap. If more objections come up put it up for review. Arstar 21:06, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
Everyone is, in some way, struggling to survive. They are the world's 7th biggest economy only because other economies are so small. What interest do they have in the goings-on in the Great Lakes, anyway? Vermont and Canada at least are sending regular expeditions to map the Great Lakes region. Although I cannot see why Canada would want to join any organization alongside Superior, with which it just fought that war. Benkarnell 01:04, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
Not really. the Celtic Alliance is Ireland and all its economy (which suffered no strikes, well technically it did, on Belfast, but thats in Northern Ireland), plus subsidized, poorer and smaller versions of the UK and France. But what I meant is that compared to all the other members the Celtic Alliance is at least five times as powerful and could definitely maintain there. Both Canada, and Celtica and Saguenay are members of the as a result of the treaty of Manchester. The CA is there to oversee how everything goes and to help give the organization international merit. Also, the organization does not discriminate by a nation's ideals or issues. You don't see the UN in OTL kicking out North Korea or Iran because the US and EU hate their guts, ey? And um, remember that the Celtic Alliance and North Penn forces fought together in the Saguenay War. So by then the ambassadors would have gotten to know each other quite well. Arstar 01:28, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
Arstar: It's Ireland. It's a small country with a small population, its status magnified by the fact that all other countries have been brought lower. And this isn't the UN. The UN is explicitly for everybody. This is a specific regional alliance, and if an out-of-region power is going to join, it's because it has extraordinarily strong relations with the members. Canada joining is the equivalent to, say, Iran joining the Arab League. Benkarnell 03:02, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
Quibble about the Celtics all you want, but Canada joined as a result of the Treaty and its new territory in the Great Lakes region at Kingston and Thunder Bay. That comparison really isn't valid.
The C.A. issue isn't a quibble. It's a big, glaring mistake on the page.
There's another problem with Canada's membership. It makes sense for the communities of this region to form a UN-type organization when it seemed to them that there was no hope of a "real" UN emerging. But now that it has, why would Canada, a founding League of Nations member, join this duplicate organization? I can't comment on the treaty because the page doesn't really explain it anywhere - is it on some other page? Benkarnell 03:20, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
The Saguenay War and History of Canada pages explain things fairly well.
The Canadian government views it as a regional organization with an uppity streak, nothing more. It was one of the treaty articles.
Quite frankly, I don't really care for the Celtic part myself. But, as per Arstar's wishes, they have sent a pair of observers with the Canadian Diplomats to the UC. In my mind the basic idea is no one really knows why, but for the Celts it was done to act as a neutral voice, to keep the peace.
Canada should be an observer. Full membership is implausible IMO. Also the Celts being a part of it is implausible as well. This is a regional organization of North American survivor states stuck in the Great Lakes region. Despite its hopes of being something more, it would have no attraction to the Celts. Mitro 14:38, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
You'll have to discuss the Celts with Arstar. He's the one who insisted on it, not me. My job is to make it as logical as possible, little more.
As for Canada, just because they will eventually be eligible for full membership doesn't mean it'll happen ;)
The Celtic Alliance having membership in the UC doesn't make sense. It's a regional organization with regional goals. I doubt they would let the Celtic Alliance join, much less would the Celtic Alliance have an interest in joining. And, like Benkarnell said, its Ireland. They're not that powerful. Everyone else is just substantially weakened, so they have a chance to rise. The Celtic Alliance does not have the status to demand entry into such an organization or exert major influence in North America outside of Canada.
As for Canada, I could see them possibly joining, however, I doubt they would. Ultimately, due to the redundancy of its current goal, the UC would become a regional unification organization centered around the American Midwest and the southern half of Ontario, Canada. Since Canada clearly wants to reunite the country under its original rule, it would never consent to joining an organization who's goal would ultimately be to incorporate part of southern Ontario into a unified Midwestern state. Or, even if they didn't absorb southern Ontario, neither Canada or the American survivor states would want to unite with one another. Caeruleus 18:39, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
The stated goal of the UC is an international organization, as an heir to the UN, pure and simple. While the ultimate result may be such a state, it is not their goal.
Canada has joined as as result of the Treaty of Manchester, ending the Saguenay War. They view it as a regional organization with delusions of grandeur, and one which can be used to further its goals.
I agree that the Celts joining is illogical, as I've said in here a couple times. Arstar, however, insisted, I don't feel like squabbling with'em over it. So, I made it as logical as possible when writing it in. Take it up with him, or remove it yourselves from everywhere. I ain't gonna get into it with someone over that.
But I consider Canada, providing they stay at more or less the same status, plausible. It was listed on my points for the re-write, and no one argued then, so....
Guys do whatever you want about the Celts. If the Celt part isn't gonna make it than fine. I would like this organization to evolve out of being a regional one but if you guys aren't going to let that plan come to fruition than thats okay. If someone has a better idea for a timeframe in which down the road a European, African, or even South American might join or send an ambassador than that would be good. Arstar 04:36, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Celtic references from this and the other articles where it was mentioned, since no one else has. Would there still be objections to graduation now?
A survivor republic based in southeast Wales. Jnjaycpa 17:53, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
To be honest I think that they would end up joining their fellow Celts in the Celtic Alliance. Besides that the Celtic Alliance article pretty much states what isn't theres of Wales and Scotland is mostly wasteland. Keep that in mind. Arstarpool 19:58, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Well are there any objections before I make this obsolete? 01:55, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
I think he should be given a chance, first. While I think it should be smaller, the thing as a whole is plausible, to a degree.
<wishes Jni wrote faster>
Yeah but below it seems that there is consensus that we have reached the limit of British states. Mitro 14:15, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
Now that Owens Shropshire has been marked obsolete there is a possiblity of expanding Wales into former England (Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worstershire), it's also possible that another existing nation (i think Lancaster is the closest) taking over the area in the future? i've added the idea to the Wales talk page and Jnjaycpa's talk page,something may come of it hopefully--Smoggy80 19:03, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
IMO, I think the UK is to crowded for anymore large states to be plauisble. Mitro 15:44, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
Any objections to marking this as obsolete? Mitro 16:16, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
A country to fill the gap between Aralia, Iran and the Emirate of Bukhara. Any objections? SjorskingmaWikistad 12:49, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
Ashgabat and the east of Turkmenistan would have been hit, due to them being close to borders of Afghanistan and Iran, if I'm not wrong. Besides that, it's a great idea! --Fedelede 13:09, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
Most of the territory you claim here is under the control of the Muslim Liberation Army, and the remainder is supposed to have little to no central authorities.
Well, the point of a open timeline is that things are to be canonical, not "supposed to be". Second, The MLA can indeed have power in Central-Asia, but this country isn't too big (only the western part of Turkmenistan). SjorskingmaWikistad 13:21, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
It says in the starting paragraph almost all of Turkmenistan, and parts of Uzbekistan. What it says later on is irrelevant.
And if it indeed held the territory it does, it would border Aralia, or nearly so - and that was conquered by the Siberians, who would not stop there if they had this juicy tidbit right there next door.
Iran holds a sphere of influence in the area, and the assumption of little to no central authority comes from both that and the Iranian need to set up a buffer state in the area between themselves and the Siberians, which is why they sent the MLA into the area. If this existed as you have written - with even territory size - they would not have done this.
You also fail to take into account nuclear strikes in the region.
Sjor, QSS and QAA states that not only do we respect what was written but also what has been assumed by the community. I haven't worked much on Central Asia, but if general consensus is what LG stated than that should be respected. Mitro 17:29, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
Hang on, what's the Emirate of Bukhara?HAD 18:41, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit rusty whit my canon at the moment, but I do believe that the article was created by Fedelede, and is an area going back and forth between Siberian, MLA and "native" influence. Sjors, the article does sound like it would be hard to place in the general area, as previous history contradicts the existance of the country.--Vladivostok 19:41, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
Effectively, Vladivostok. The Emirate is a nation created by me, influenced by the Socialists, the MLA, and the "royalist" armies, which want a return of a less religious, more historical Emirate. If you read the WCRB headlines, the "royalists" just took over the small city of Guliston. --Fedelede 00:18, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
I move we make this obsolete. It does go against canon, and he has failed to do anything about it.
It's been two weeks, which is far too early to declare this obsolete. Also, it is somewhat plausible. The territory of the MLA has always been loosely controlled and fluid, nor is the MLA all-powerful in Central Asia. Siberia also isn't that powerful. Their population and overall resources have been substantially reduced. Even though they were able to conquer Aralia, which would have been somewhat of stretch since they don't control the area between Aralia and Siberia, they would have been unable to advance much further mainly due to the fact that most of the area is lawless.
That being said, there are some changes that are needed. A history needs to be added, a map would be nice (though not necessary), and some other minor things need to be changed. I do like the presence of a disputed zone with the MLA and I wouldn't expect this to ever emerge as a major player, but its existence is plausible. The creator will finish it eventually. Caeruleus 21:01, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
You're right, Caeruleus. Bati-Turkestan may be plausible... If the creator reduces the size of the nation, takes in the account of the nuclear strikes (at least Ashgabat, probably Krasnowdosk, Mary and Kerki) and the presence of important powers on the region. Also, why would Turkish be an official language? Fedelede 21:14, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
It's Turkmen. Probably just miswritten. Caeruleus 22:23, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
All of my original points still remain, and nothing has been done at all about it.
Former stub expanded on by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Any objections? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
What about the Sri Lankan Civil War? What happened to the Tigers? Doomsday probably would have made things go better for them. We could see a divided Sri Lanka. Mitro 01:45, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
This article has been a proposal for a long time with little work done to it. Unless someone is willing to adopt it we should probably consider marking it as obsolete. Mitro 04:14, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as nothing appears to be happening with this article any objections to finally marking this as obsolete? --Zack 03:12, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
Article I made right before Zack made Antlers. Mentioned in the Oaklahoma article, I would appreciate if Zack or Brian or someone else could help me out with this one. Arstarpool 18:37, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
I'll be happy to help out, let me know how I can do so. BrianD 02:14, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Any objections to passing as a stub? Arstar 01:30, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
An objection/ question for Arstarpool, do you have plans to update this in the foreseeable future? Or is this another Ogasawara? --Zack 02:17, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I'll update it. Any objections now? Arstar 01:47, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
Technically a colony of Essex, located on the Isle of Sheppey off the coast of Kent, UK. Rather... different from what has come before in terms of concept, so I'll be interested to see what the community thinks of this. Fegaxeyl 20:14, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
Would this be categorized as a nation or a corporation?Oerwinde 08:57, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
A corporation which holds land. Fegaxeyl 09:15, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Comparable to the East India Company, or other such joint-stock companies from that era.
My only problem is that there's no nearby Canadian territory there. I've read somewhere that the pre-territory government is still in control of the area, but for now, why don't you just list as being under Canadian Influence rather than a territory, because it would be kinda weird for it to come into Confederation being a speck in a sea of no-mans land :P Arstar 16:24, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that was written into Thunder Bay, not here.
Canada has cleared a passage on the north bank of the St. Lawrence River from the raiders, which is largely secure. (It is shown on the Canada map)
These connects them to the area, though barely. A Governor was chosen out of the locals, and life as a territory begun.
You have to remember, these group has been waiting on the return of the Canadian government for years.
Very short still. Part 2 of Equatorial Guinea. Part of the idea behind this is to show that the WAU can be greedy, too. Bioko will be something like their Afghanistan. The island isn't going to be particularly violent, but the WAU-imposed regime is not going to have any local support. As such, this will need specific approval from Oerwinde. Benkarnell 13:40, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
What do you guys think is it ready for graduation? Arstar 07:04, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
It has some problems, but it's far too early to be declared obselete. A Hungarian survivor state would obviously arise after Doomsday. The details of which just need to be clarified. Caeruleus 21:10, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
Older revisions of the Alpine article that were deleted in recent updates states that the borders are closed outside of the immediate border of Austria. It mentions security risks.
This page should just list all the Hungarian survivor states post-Doomsday. You can't go wrong on that. Arstar 08:37, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
Funny how despite all of that nothing was still done. And now the existence of Partium must be dealt with too.
I did some work on this article. Essentially it is not all that different from what Arstar was suggesting. It gives a brief history on Post-Doomsday Hungary while listing the various survivor states in the region. Any thoughts, comments, questions? Mitro 16:52, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
Nicely done, though I'll edit the parts relating to Partium, Galicia, and Transylvania a little.
That is fine with me. Obviously you are better to expand on those states that I can, especially since you created 2 out of the 3. Mitro 01:38, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
'Whatever suits this timeline' - I was just starting off an obvious absence. Another inclusion 'somewhere' - the tourist attraction mines/caves which extend so far that a passport is needed, as going into Slovakia. Jackiespeel 14:43, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
Done the editing I wanted to do.
Hope you don't mind, but I largely removed the monarchy part. Most Hungarian nationalists wouldn't like the idea of giving a German monarch their crown.
Article by anonymous user, but VENEZUELA did all of the work. This is one of those articles that's never really going to be finished so are there any objections? Arstar 05:26, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
I moved the old discussion to the Macedonia talk page archive. Arstarpool 01:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Are there any other things needed to be fixed before we graduate this? Arstarpool 01:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the objection I had about the bunker. It is based on to many assumptions with zero facts. South has already pointed out the prince would survive without it. Any reference to a fictional bunker should be removed. Mitro 01:55, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Mitro, if you'd look at the page, all references have been removed regarding the bunker. Ownerzmcown 02:56, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Huh, your right, my bad. On another note, the map posted seems to conflict with the map posted on the Greece article. What is the deal on that? Mitro 03:19, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Owner, just fix it quick. Mitro, when he's done lets try to get this graduated quick. Owner's put a lot of work into it, and I think its time he gets his pay. Arstarpool 03:48, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
The Turkey contact dates will have to be adjusted due to issues involving their contact with Greece that would preclude contact with Macedonia.
Also needs a map that removes the Serbian parts, or it needs to explain in the article how Macedonia managed to get a big chunk of Serbia from a nation that is far larger and more populous and experienced in warfare. And that needs to happen after 1989.Oerwinde 00:17, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
The understanding at the time was that in the aftermath of 1985, much of Serbia was in chaos. As of yet, the Serbia article doesn't say this, though they should, in part. Heck, my Bulgaria articles have even said that from early on.
The Bulgaria articles mention the collapse of Yugoslavia but not much more than that. The Slovenia, Bosnia, and Croatia articles are better to work from in regards to the status of Serbia.Oerwinde 17:08, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
Is my article ever gonna get graduated or what? Ownerzmcown 17:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
I offered you some help but you respectfully declined, however my deal is still out to make it slightly smaller and more realistic. It's your choice. Arstarpool 20:03, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't have gone for that deal myself, Arstar, especially with how it sounded.
Owner, you have to account for the existence of Serbia somehow. Maybe say something like Serbia left their southern areas undefended while attacking into Bosnia, and Macedonia took some areas over, and having the border fairly fluid today?
Serbia would crush Macedonia. I think it more likely they have their OTL borders.Oerwinde 17:09, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Belgrade was nuked, refugees were pouring across the border, and Serbia was fighting wars to the north. Assuming Macedonia was stable at the time, they could have fairly easily seized areas of southern Serbia, such as southern Kosovo and surrounding areas. But, once the Serbia situation is clarified, this should be graduated. Caeruleus 03:10, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, now that I've changed the map, I believe all things are in order and my article should be graduated. Ownerzmcown 00:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Good for changing the map - but the rest of the article has not been edited, as per suggestions on the talk page. In light of the situation in Yugoslavia, it makes no sense and still needs to be changed before it can be graduated.
Look, one, the list of things on the talk page has gotten to long under the Serbia section and I have too short of an attention span to read it all, and two, can you just tell me what to change here? Ownerzmcown 02:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Fine, though I don't see how the list I left is hard to find, lol.
Remove the part about the Yugoslavian collapse - never really occurred that way.
Have them run into Serbian troops while attempting to get deeper into Serbia instead of local warlords.
A sentence about something along the lines of Serbian troops never knew they were more than rebels or Croatian forces - both would likely be present in parts of the area.
Come to think of it, have the original goal being a strong monarchy - not constitutional - but made that way in a compromise with the locals.
Have them take over parts of southern Serbia, in the process of gaining Macedonia that were relatively undefended.
Able to keep these areas due to Serbian preoccupation elsewhere at first, and then later on due to the defenses.
Contact with Serbia would be by 1989 at latest, but more likely than not prior to then.
Contact with Croatia and Bosnia about the same time.
Knowledge of Greece would be gained as well, though for other reasons - Macedonian designs on Northern Greece, call it - contact not made until 1995.
The Civil War could be seen as a Serbian attempt through dissidents to regain annexed regions too, and only a failure in the end because of the Turkish troops loaned to them.
The collapse of the Kosovo state mentioned in the Serbia article would allow parts of that province to be taken over. Call it to prevent the Serbians from taking it all. May not be canon, but makes sense.
Remainder of story holds up, so long as whatever refers back to earlier, edited details, is changed as well.
Remember, the existence of Serbia would mean that intervention against Greece would be suicidal - especially with a vengeful Serbian state to their north.
The majority of these will need to be done - but it would better if all of them were.
Okay, one, I'm not understanding what you mean when you talk about the Civil War, two, what do you mean by that last part about Greek intervention, and three, when would they probably make contact with Greece, in your opinion? Ownerzmcown 01:12, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
According to your article, there's a Macedonian civil war from 1997-1999. The last part refers to discussions on some talk pages about possible Macedonian attacks on Greece during the Sicily War.
As for contact with Greece, I would say limited contact, either with Heptanesa or Mount Athos, at some point in the late 1980s, with full contact sometime after 1992, when you encounter the Turks. Given the original areas of expansion, I would say that Mount Athos would be the more likely. I'd keep the current year - 1995 - for official relations, like it is now.
Its been a month and it seems that Owner's interests have returned to the map games so is someone interested in adopting it and fixing the issues? Arstar 07:02, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
I'd be willing to partially adopt this thing to get it done, if no one objects. (No response from Owner, gave him a day~)
Article created by Yank and expanded by Ven. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Any objections to graduating this now? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Seems a little optimistic. Many of these countries have fought wars with each other in recent history. For some many to cooperate so quickly seems unlikely. Mitro 01:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
That, or this could be a totally dysfunctional organization of rivals. (OAS, anyone?) Benkarnell 15:15, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
Any objections to marking this article as obsolete? Mitro 16:49, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
HAD seems to busy to work on this article and being that it is an Owen article, any objections to marking it as obsolete? Mitro 16:52, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Lordganon 22:35, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
Former obsolete article revived by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Any objections? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
There is still a lot of discussion going on in this region. What do Vlad, Lordganon, Caer and Owner have to say on this article? Mitro 01:41, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
It doesn`t mesh with canon. The Croatia article doesn`t have Serbia declaring independence from Yugoslavia, and it has it annex Kosovo and Montenegro prior to the dates in the article. Since Vlad seems to be dealing with most of former Yugoslavia aside from Macedonia, I say let him have a go at fleshing it out first.Oerwinde 08:03, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it makes no sense for them to be declaring independence.
The region should also be made more chaotic, especially in the areas near Bulgaria.
Going to have to make the Macedonian expansion northward plausible somehow too.
Would make Macedonian interference in the Sicily War much less likely too.
A page about one of the associate states of the Outer Lands. --NuclearVacuum 19:29, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
My proposed attacks on Long Island.
I have been doing some research on Long Island attacks for this timeline. Granted I am very peaceful and would never think to attack anybody, I find FEMA's map of New York targets rather, overdone. According to this map, Montauk is attacked, which is not of risk or value to an attack. In my opinion, the Soviets are wasting good bombs on Long Island. Following some links given here, I have found a likely list of the primary, secondary, and tertiary targets of New York State. From what it mentions here, no part of Long Island is a primary target. It does say that the New York City area is a target, but it mentions that area "west of Stony Brook" would be attacked. It was mentioned here that the tertiary targets would be the least likely to be attacked, which could be a savior for LI, as the Brookhaven National Laboratory is listed as a tertiary target, but I think it would be better if it were left out, since New York City would be a better target. Another area I would like to bring up is Fishers Island, which is an island in the Long Island Sound which is only seven miles from New London, Connecticut (which would be attacked). So it would be in the direct line of fire, so it would be a no mans land, this would also make the islands of the Northern Fork quite inhospitable, so sadly they would be gone. I made this map to show a possible scenario for the attacks in the Long Island region. It may need some work, but this is just how I see it. --NuclearVacuum 14:41, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
Any objections to graduating this article? Mitro 16:55, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
Finally got around to doing up an article on Kitchener, different name though after finding out the region is known as the Region of Waterloo, also I couldn't find the demonym of a resident of Kitchener and Waterluvian sounded cool. Oerwinde 08:57, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
So what is going on with this article? Adoption? Graduation? Mark as obsolete? Mitro 16:56, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
It looks to be mostly finished, and it is called on in other places too. Graduation would be the best option. Lordganon 22:33, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
I agree it needs to be graduated. --Zack 01:51, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
My second foray into the lives of some people who would have survived Doomsday. I have asked Fxgentleman for some help, as Stewart would be currently living in Delmarva, and I do not want to contradict canon. Tbguy1992 03:48, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
I think Fx made some objections to this article on the talk page. Any objections to marking as obsolete? Mitro 16:57, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
Originally created by Owen, but other editors have been adding to it. Mitro 14:41, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please adopt this article? Mitro 16:58, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should just graduate it as a stub and turn it into a community article? After all, it is essentially a list of references to other articles. Lordganon 22:37, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
Article created by Arstar. Mitro 14:47, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
Are there any objections to graduation? Arstar 04:55, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
Still very vague. I'd like to know more about these arm deals. --Zack 01:21, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
What arm deals. The ones sold to NP, or the exports? Exports is almost all explosives exports, mainly TNT to locals, and imports is, well, what they bring in. Also remember that the currencies of the DD-world do not have as the same value of the ones in OTL, I imagine that every 2 NP$ is about 1 OTL US Dollar, so don't get all huffed up over the values of what they export/import. Arstar 04:04, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
Do any objections stand, can I graduate this to a stub now? Arstar 21:45, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. If someone is interested in adopting this page, let me know. My only guidelines is that its going to be based in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and is a recently reestablished city-state. Arstar 22:57, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
I've been looking into making a state here for a while - but those conditions dont fly with my plans. A shame.
Irregardless, my research into the area shows that the radiation from strikes in Maryland and DC would have passed to either side, for the most part. The area would have been lightly irradiated, but by no means rendered uninhabitable by it.
...Which is why its recently resettled, but recently can mean a lot of things. Any reinhabitation happening after 1999 is my only request. Arstar 01:43, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
I more-so meant that there'd be no need to resettle it, as no one would have left originally.
It's for a survivor state in New Jersey encompassing the whole state. Not only does it fail to take into account the Trenton strike, New York strikes, and the condition of the region, it also has it controlling Delmarvan territory. It should either be turned into another US State article, or made obsolete.
Obsolete is better for the time being, unless someone wants to deal with it at this time.
Article created by Yank. Mitro 16:31, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
I thought Illinois had been declared "full" a long time ago. Benkarnell 03:20, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, any objections to marking as obsolete? Mitro 16:17, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
I do. This article has potential to be a rival turned ally for Vandalia. At least I only made it a county big. Plus i don't think Illinois is "full" just yet.
Yank 17:38, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you Yank. Most of the major population areas were destroyed on Doomsday. Southern Illinois is under control of Kentucky. The Quad Cities are expanding in the northwest. Central Illinois is already written in as a lawless area. Than you have the large state of Vandalia and the small community of Charleston. Am I missing anything? Mitro 17:45, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
O yes, and the wasteland that is the former Chicago metro area. Mitro 16:12, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
Alright, well any objections to marking this as obsolete? --Zack 04:30, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Give me and Yank some time and we'll salvage it. Its not exactly the perfect little democratic utopia as I recall so if thats one of the reasons your ruling it out than don't. Arstar 04:35, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
That is not my reason. Illinois is to crowded for another organized state like this. Having it here makes the region implausible. Mitro 01:01, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Obsolete then? --Zack 22:12, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Definitely. Have a gander over at the Doomsday USA strike list, and you'll find "Decatur, IL" nice and visible ;)
Lordganon 11:39, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
Article created by Jnjaycpa. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2jec010 (UTC)
This has been a proposal since August. What are we doing with this article? Mitro 18:20, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
Like many of Jni's articles, it seems fairly abandoned. If it's still around when I'm done my current projects I'll deal with it. Lordganon 03:29, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
Anything happening with this article? LG does not seem finished with his other projects, anyone else want to take a stab at getting this article graduated? Mitro 16:51, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
All righty, with Serbia more or less done, I'll adopt this sucker and get to work! =)
Article by Sunkist. Arstar 02:01, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
IMHO this seems impossibly large to control most of Iowa, touching the entire western Lincoln border and slightly grazing the QCA one. What do the rest of you guys think? Arstar 02:01, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
The main problem is that the author, Sunkist, doesn't get the concept of "dead space", that more than half of America would be uncontrolled territory, and that plopping large organized states because they simply fit isn't practical.
If it was smaller, than that would be a different story. Arstar 02:34, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
What is happening to this page? Arstar 21:49, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Obsolete then? --Zack 20:04, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
East Europe Pact[]
Name is temporary. Pretty much democratic version of the Warsaw Pact, hoping to keep the Socialist Union from taking over East Europe. Arstar 06:00, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
This doesn't fit into my planning at all, so I must respectfully say that none of the in former Soviet territory from Belarus southwards in Europe, or Balkan nations, will be joining.
Like Lordganon this wouldn't fit with my eventual plans for the RC and its (Soon to be written) vassel states. So i must regretfully say that they would also stay out of any democratic Eastern European block that wasn't led by them. I would like to know what Lg's plans for his Russian states were though. Vegas adict 13:40, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
Arstar I warned you already please deal with the proposals above before getting into a new one. You now have some 14-15 odd proposals are articles your contributing to. Please deal with them. --Zack 20:29, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Zack I'm sorry but I have like 9 I'm actually working on. There's like half of them that I gave up for adoption so most likely I have at most which are mine like 7. There's like two I've made obsolete and a bunch more that are also other people's works. Most likely you went to the Proposal category and counted every proposal that was made by me as mine, so fact-check better next time please. Arstar 21:19, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Article by me and Sunkist and Zack. It will be the result of a unification between First Coast, South Florida and Gainesville. Arstarpool 20:45, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
Any objections to stubby-ness? Arstarpool 20:45, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much I'm restating the same reasons that I had above. Mitro 21:18, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
The nation-state of First Coast (East Florida) is itself still a proposal, not having proven its own viability. The date you give for South Florida joining up is in 1996. I am pretty sure you mean 2010. Before you run headlong into this reunification, let's see if you can make First Coast work first. Meanwhile, let's change "Gainseville" back to "North Florida" (Sunkist - formerly known as Perryz - is back and he's the reason Zack changed the name).
I haven't researched East Florida, though it looks okay in concept. A balkanized Florida, like a balkanized Texas, does not make sense. Therefore, once we have established "East Florida," we can work on pulling them together, but I think the capital should be in Gainesville (a split capital really isn't necessary). SouthWriter 02:04, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that a balkanized Texas does make sense, at least in the aftermath of Doomsday. The size of Texas, combined with the number of nuclear strikes on State, makes it likely that Texas would split.HAD 18:33, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
Well any objections now? All three member states are canon now. Arstarpool 02:55, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
All three are canon indeed but this is rushing unification of the Florida states. They need to have more stable roadways to interconnect the three nations. I support unification but this is all happening way too fast. Maybe sometime around 2015. --GOPZACK 03:14, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
That is way to late and all of us will most likely be gone by then. I chose 2011 because it is far enough away and unification has been a planned thing since the 90's. And actually, couldn't they be an "exclave nation", a nation with no access by land but all share sea access? Nevertheless I will make a couple of modifications to the date so that they all unify at the same time. Arstarpool 03:19, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
We must stick to plausibility we may not be here in five years but he have to keep this timeline in good shape for the next "generation" of contributors. An exclave nation would not work in this environment. In Texas reunification works because the nations are almost beside each other, the three Florida's are spread out and in three separate corners. Maybe a partial reunification could work. --GOPZACK 03:35, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
Was thinking about Ocala, 93 Highway, would of Gainesville visted them?, in fact its quite large, wouldent it become some type of city state?--Sunkist- 03:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
Ocala is only 30 miles south on Fla. 93 ( I - 75 ), so there is no reason why the two cities could not have not only known of each other, but Ocala could have been a city of North Florida. If so it would probably be the southernmost town or city of North Florida. Highway 93 and/or I-75 take turns toward bombed areas somewhere south of Ocala, though. The roads east out of Gainesville sneak between bombed out areas to conect to both St. Augustine and Daytona Beach. If we wanted to put the capital in a centrally located city, Lakeland, a small town which had to deal with refugees from both Tampa and Orlando, would be the best choice. It is about equidistant between Gainevile, Daytona and Ft. Myers (junction of state highway 35 and I-4), but may have suffered as being isolated and overwhelmed. It's survivors probably ended up in South Florida, but some would have certainly gone north towards Ocala.
To the right is a map showing the probable roads used between the states. (SouthWriter)
Guys are there any objections to graduating this page? Arstarpool 04:01, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
There is no hurry, Astar. No reason has been given why St. Augustine should be the capital - South Florida is indeed the strongest of the three nations, with international relations to the Caribbean. First Coast (aka East Florida) probably has connections with the Bahamas and perhaps Bermuda (though probably only through the Bahamas). North Florida (aka "Gainesville") has the University of Florida and possibly the remnants of the original state government, making it an obvious center of government as well. First Coast was a late comer in the development of this whole idea of a combined state and should not take the forefront (it is also manifestly weak, being in the midst of so many nuclear strikes). SouthWriter 23:49, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar[talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
While it may be the only port on the Atlantic, the other side of the peninsula is close enough so that such an argument means little.
Besides, it is also the weakest of the three. If anything, the strongest is the state in southwest Florida. Which is much more likely to be the capital - besides, it's also where the LoN is active.
I really don't mind what city becomes the capital, St. Augustine could be..the Croydon of Florida ( Indiana's first capital ) it can be the face of Florida and have its historical meaning, but with out being the real seat of the government, and have one of South Florida's citys host the government...being like Indianapolis.--Sunkist- 08:26, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
Even then, the other two nations both would have like seven times the population of First Coast - each. The Corydon comparison isn't really applicable - at least when it was made the capital it was in the most populated area of the state, while St. Augustine isn't.
I've given up trying to change people's minds when they disagree but technically St. Augustine was the capital back in the day, of Spanish Florida, and it was one of the first colonial settlements on the East Coast. Arstar 00:10, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
So what prevents this article from being graduated? Does the capital just have to be changed? Mitro 16:52, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
I seem to recall that was the only issue left, though that may be wrong. Lordganon 22:35, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
Have I satisfied the objections to the capital issue? If there aren't any objections to that I'm graduating the article a day from now. Arstar 21:44, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Arstar, you still have St. Augustine as the capital, so the objections remain. More than half the population here is in South Florida, so the capital would be there more likely than not - besides, they are also the strongest and best connected by far.
The largest city, as I'm noticed, is also wrong. Cape Coral-Fort Myers (even taking them separately) is much larger than Gainesville would be.
I've changed the largest city but what I don't get is that while South Florida might be more economically exposed buts its one of the least favorable places to put a seat of government. You have constant heat, hurricanes, and occasional flooding. If your going to have to call an emergency every month and move upstate you might as well stay there. Believe me, I live in South Florida, and you spend half the year with shutters on your windows or the governor is calling a state of emergency. Besides 2/3 of the nations are in North Florida.
Gainesville is basically "New Miami", as thousands of Miami college students who hate UM go up there to study at UF instead. Personally I wouldn't see anything wrong with this city being the capital but other than the University and immediate areas its pretty poor and boring.
Saint Augustine, however, has both the infrastructure and the cultural significance to be the capital. It is small, yes, (not counting tourists and Canadians and Northerners who fly south for the winter) but it is the oldest continuously inhabited settlement in the US, and it was the capital of Spanish Florida, so it does have some experience as capital. Plus an Atlantic port is pretty needed. Arstar 02:35, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
The population is centered in the south to a large degree - more than half of the population would live there, which should trump or equalize the number of northern states. You have the capital being put in the weakest one of the three, by far, which makes little sense, as others noted.
St. Augustine may have been the capital of Spanish Florida, but it hasnt been the capital in almost 200 years. And that was with the Spanish, not anyone speaking English. I sincerely doubt anyone there would have such an attachment.
I'm aware of the weather reasons for South Florida, but it's Florida. The other two would face similar problems, though maybe not so severe. As for an Atlantic port, South Florida is so close that it's irrelevant.
Quite frankly, even Gainsville would be better - the First Coast is quite frankly too small and impoverished for it even to be a thought.
And since you have South Florida subsidizing First coast with taxes after the union, they would insist on having the capital not there too, and likely in their territory. Lordganon 12:26, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with LG I don't see why the future united Florida would give a rip about what the Spanish did many, many moons ago. It really should be Gainsville or the Cape Coral-Fort Myers region. Furthermore, does St. Augustine have the facilities necessary to be a capital? Considering what LG said above regarding poverty in the region that is doubtful. --Zack 00:45, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Can't stay away.. here are some buildings that could be used by the government, large Hotels usually have large ballrooms or parlors that could be converted into a meeting room for the senate or House of Reps.---Sunkist- 06:26, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Way I figure it, a lot of those are part of the College, and would likely be kept as such - education is important, after all. The one hotel would have had guests in it, and I kinda doubt they'd have left in the aftermath of DD. The other would probably have become home to refugees, given its restored condition, even if it was on the college campus.
Not to say they couldn't be used, but it's just kinda problematic, really. Both Gainesville and Cape Coral-Fort Myers would have more - and the university campus in Gainsville is much bigger and could in part be used for the purpose.
LG is right, my objections still stand. --Zack 02:13, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we take a vote to see what should be the capital?
Arstar the problem with this poll is that it leaves people open to vote for what they want rather then what is plausible. The best way is still debate. These votes are anonymous and leaves a user open to voting multiple times for the option they desire. --Zack 18:16, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. These things work for minor things, like flags, but the capital of a country must be determine by the consensus of the community after some healthy debate. Mitro 20:16, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
With that the poll is null & void. --Zack 02:59, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
Below is some discussion from Sunkist's talk page posted here for transparency
I'm rooting for St. Augustine to be capital, and after that Cape Coral, but Gainesville is total trash redneck world. The only thing worthwhile there is the University, and even thats pretty crappy. Arstar 21:00, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to break in here, guys, but that is a value judgment that is fully out of line! Just because you live and grew up in South Florida doesn't mean you can badmouth the good folk of North Florida. I grew up in North Florida, and indeed we are not as "high class" as the "blue-blood" rich. But we are not less able to run the state!
Gainesville is the logical choice. As it is the home of the state's main university, it has is organizationally set to run things professionally. The "rednecks" you are thinking of are mostly in the western half of the state anyway. So cut with the "trash talk," okay. St.Augustine, on the other hand, in this time line anyway, is an isolated city-state with bombed out cities all around it. Even its Atlantic coast port is inferior to that of Cape Coral's Gulf coast. Access to Mexico, Jamaica, and Cuba, trumps that to the Bahamas and Bermuda (and even the American East Coast as of 2010. My choice would be Gainsville, then Cape Coral. SouthWriter 21:25, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with South, those bigoted remarks do not belong in this wiki. Secondly I encourage the three of you to post your comments regarding the capital for a united Florida on the main 1983: Doomsday talk page so the debate can be open and transparent for all contributors to this timeline. --Zack 21:39, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
I'm allowed to ask another user, who is the co-caretaker on what I thought the capital should be on his talk page if I want.
Also, the reason I wanted St. Augustine as capital is because it balances out the differences between North and South Florida. Even though Miami was destroyed, roughly somewhere between a fifth and a quarter of the Republic of South Florida's population is Hispanic. And I can tell you right now that growing up in South Florida its' like going to a different country once you go above Lake Ockeechobee. Hey, even in our timeline, there's been multiple grassroots movements for South Floridian statehood.
East Florida, or the First Coast if you may is kind of a balanced-out zone between the Southern North and the Northern South. It has a bit of each, or maybe neither, but you catch my point. Arstar 00:36, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Guys, how about this, how about Gainesville will be a long-term, but temporary capital, until a sort of Federal District, which may or may not be centered around St. Augustine is created? 21:20, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
Gainesville makes the most sense. Its pretty centralized between the three states, and has the facilities for a capital. If Lakeland is claimed, it would probably make a good location too, being central to all three.--Oerwinde 22:27, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
It really just seems like a waste of time and money to first place the capital in Gainesville then move it to St. Augustine a few year later. Plus as Oerw said above it just makes sense to put it in Gainesville and keep it there. --Zack 02:03, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
Nobody said that it'll be in St. Augustine for sure, and nobody said it's going to be a few years from now. All I'm saying is that Gainesville isn't going to be the permanent capital forever. Once the situation pacifies completely in Florida a federal district will be created, sometime around 2025 maybe.
So for now let's keep it at Gainesville. Are there any other objections to graduation? FYI the further details will come in when it actually becomes a nation. Arstar 04:49, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
Actually changing it <cough> would be needed first, as would be a section on a possible federal district somewhere eventually. Lordganon 08:37, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
Let also wait for what South thinks. Personally I wouldn't graduate anything on here until Boxing Day (Sunday) seeing as many of us we'll be celebrating Christmas or some incarnation of it. --Zack 15:52, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
Mmhmm. And LG, what exactly do you mean? The federal district could likely be on the shores of Lake Okeechobee, near Arcadia where I went recently, or like I said Saint Augustine or Lakeland. 22:37, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm graduating this now. It seems that I satisfied the objections, and the capital will be Gainesville, for at least the next 15-20 years. Arstar 00:45, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
An article about an extremely small nation that is located between Aralia and the Emirate of Bukhara. --Fedelede 18:26, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not even close to finishing the article nor graduating it, but are there any objections currently going on? --Fedelede 15:03, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
Seems fairly good so far. In my opinion I think it's ready for graduation but does anyone else have objections. Arstar 03:39, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
I think Fed should be the one to ask for objections and to tell us when he thinks that it is complete. Lordganon 14:14, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think I'm done with it. Any objections for graduation? --Fedelede 15:54, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
Are we counting metropolitan areas or just cities? Because I see some cities are counting metro areas (Midland-Odessa) while others like Niagara Falls and St. Catherines are considered separate. If we're allowed to list metro areas than I'm going to merge St. Catherines and Niagara Falls. Arstar 17:15, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
A couple of the cities have listings like that simply because they are so close together and as centers of government (or quoted populations) they will have expanded so that there's only a short distance between the two. Think of it like the LA area otl - LA itself is fairly small by comparison, but going through the area if you didn't know better you'd never notice (ignoring signs, etc of course) that it wasn't all a single city. These are essentially a single city now.
With Niagara Falls and St. Catherines, you do have the Canadian side pretty close. However, most of the population of the Falls is on the other side. I just don't see it expanding far enough to warrant them being the same city.
Overall, the populations I've used, while not the "city" populations, are not really the "metro" ones either. On some pages you'll see "urban" population, and its more like that.
I've also removed the Wisconsin city you added, and adjusting Florence. The Florence population, when added to "North" Tuscany, is more than the entire Tuscan population, despite it being fought over once, and by the same figures, is larger than in otl, by a large margin (as is your 1981 figure, by around 100,000). Madison as you list has more people than the republic of Wisconsin, of which it is the capital - when you adjust that population in relation, its not even close to the list.
As a South Floridian I have to say there's a pretty big difference between Cape Coral and Fort Myers.
~Arstar
There is 8 miles between the two otl - as far as I'm concerned, with an expanded population, and it being a capital, it is now essentially one city atl. Lordganon 12:05, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
What are your plans? Do you have any more work to do, or should we graduate this now? Arstar 16:17, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
Even though South America will not really change much from otl, and Antarctica has no cities, I'll be doing those sections first. I'll ask for objections, etc. first, lol. Lordganon 17:32, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
I believe that'll do it. Objections? Lordganon 13:49, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
A war occurring in Africa. CheesyCheese 12:42, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
As I wrote on the talk page for this, it is not plausible as written. Read the history of Greece and Egypt and go off of them, not that Libya article, as it goes against what is in the other articles.
The two Chad sides were equal in strength, and the French forces would run out of supplies at the same time the Libyans would. Makes no sense for them to leave like this, or for the Libyans to not crush Chad without them.
A draw, with the boundary at the 15th parallel, and the northern state controlling parts of southern Libya as well would be better.
I have changed the page so the boundary between the two nations is at the 15th Parallel. I also wrote that contact was lost with Tripoli after Doomsday instead of a nuclear strike, as on the Egypt page it is written that contact was lost with Tripoli after Doomsday. CheesyCheese 20:13, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Much better, though it would likely make more sense for both the French and Libyans to stay put.
I don't know about that. The main reason Libya invaded Chad was to take control of of the Aouzou Strip. Because Libya was attacked, the Libyans retreated to the Aouzou Strip to make sure it was safe from attack.
The French did not want to help Chad retake the northern half in the real war, and the fact that GUNT and Chad were equal and could not take each other's land, the Libyans leaving, and the nuclear attacks would make them leave. CheesyCheese 15:56, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
Libya wasn't attacked on Doomsday. There's no reason at for them to have been.
Thing is cheese, why would they leave with nowhere to go to? The most they could do is retreat to the Central African Republic, which would make very little difference.
I changed it to having the French staying and the Libyans leaving for some time then returning. CheesyCheese 01:11, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
Any objections to graduation? CheesyCheese 23:11, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
Well, Smoggy has made an article on Libya, and this doesn't really mesh with it. This does have priority, true enough, but I think before it can be graduated you should try to solve the differences with her first. Lordganon 05:58, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
I changed it again. CheesyCheese 22:22, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
Any objections? CheesyCheese 01:10, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
It should be cleaned up - grammar, etc. - and you should fill out the infobox too. But the content seems good, though there's something nagging me about it - not that I remember what it is, lol. Lordganon 16:37, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
The time has finally come to write this thing. Me, Arstar, Oer, and Xeight have agreed on a timeline and results for it, and I'll be writing it up over the next couple days.
War began on October 11th, 2009, with the non-response to the Greek ultimatum after the attack on the Greek freighter the day before
They consider it a good investment risk because of the start of the Saguenay War the month previously.
Emergency session of the ADC has all members declare war, and send forces as available.
In practice, this does not mean the Celts in full force, or Canada at all at this time. All forces but the rif/Corsica/Spain/Portugal navies and the Celtic/Nordic jets that start flying to Corsica from Celtic France will take a couple of months to begin to arrive.
Headquarters established at Greek military headquarters and in the Balearic Islands
First real naval engagement off Cape Matapan, Morea, on Oct 21 and Greeks destroy four(it says at least) or five Sicilian ships.
Greek troops began to arrive at Corfu after the 10th, reinforcing those already there, and gearing for a potential invasion.
Intelligence from the 13th indicates that the Sicilians will invade Libya soon by sea and land.
The invasion launches on the 15th or so, with Sicilian troops landing around the city of Zitlan, near the edge of Greek-controlled territory(just behind front defense lines), and marching through the Tripoli region
The Sicilian fleet turns around and heads back to Sicily, where they will arrive sometime between the 18th and 25th.
Using the troops on hand, the Greek forces launch an assault on the Italian mainland near the city of Lecce.
While initially successful, Sicilian reserves are able to force them back to their ships by the end of the month.
Whole goal of this is to distract Sicily
The Sicilian fleet arrives back at Sicily - the harbor at Catania - on the 22nd or so, having went the long way around in order to avoid the ANZC fleet near Malta.
The ANZC have declared "armed neutrality" in the affair - essentially, they will not intervene, but in light of the original attack, they will not let Sicilian forces anywhere near their fleet.
In order to remove the threat posed by the Greeks in the Ionians, and to claim "their territory" the Sicilians load their fleet back up with another force, which they send to said islands.
Arrival sometime Oct 30th-nov5th
Corsica invasion impractical by this time because of air force and naval movements.
Targets on the peninsula and Sardinia begin to be bombed
Fairly secure from being shot down (jets v.s. props)
In Libya, Sicilian forces manage to advance to surt amid Greek and local resistance by mid-November.
No supply shortage as of yet, but having to go around Malta and the ANC fleet is meaning that delays have begun to occur.
In Greece, new troops are being trained, and elements of the navy and air force are being shifted to the west.
Muslims in Egypt are joining in larger numbers for fighting in Libya/Tunisia - call it something about Muslim brotherhood
Assumption that the Sicilians are cracking down on Muslims somewhat, as seen in other articles
Naval forces from the western med begin to disrupt Sicilian shipping - surface ships under air cover, and subs all over
Greek naval elements continue to duel with Sicilian vessels, and have begun to secure the Libyan coast
This weakens them somewhat further north, but slows the advance in Libya more
Sicilians begin to bombard the southern Ionians on the 3rd of November
Air cover from the "boot"
They land on Kefalonia and Zakynthos on the 5th and start to take them over
They manage to secure Keflonia, but fail to secure Zakynthos, by the 10th.
Morean support keeps the more populated of the two in the game
Greek naval forces move back northwards, and as the Sicilian fleet moves to the "boot" for reinforcements - the initial wave not near enough - the Greeks are able to gain superiority over the skies of the islands again
Sicily cannot get air back here totally, as units are drawn westwards to fight with arriving aircraft
Despite the air war over the islands, the Sicilians land another wave from the units from the peninsula at Corfu, which fares the same as Zakynthos
This situation remains in play over the next couple of months, going back and forth as fresh units from either side arrive
Smaller islands change hands a couple of times
Sicily reinforces by night due to distance, and Greece does in in smaller numbers, almost continuously
About the same numbers but slight Sicily advantage
Defenses elsewhere stay roughly the same
In Libya the Sicilian advance stalls roughly 50 miles east of Surt by Christmas, as Greek reinforcements arrive and Sicilian ones begin to shrink
ADC subs beginning to raise havoc with supply lines, making them always late
Limited number of ports to both leave and arrive from
Sicilian subs are going after ADC shipping too, but they have more ports near the front-lines available than the Sicilians
Greek ones
Celtic, North German, and Nordic troops begin to arrive in mid January, reinforcing Spanish and Corsican positions
Their fleets arrive in December (mostly Nordic)
Rif and Portuguese forces have already arrived
The combination of fleets now outnumber the Sicilians badly, and they begin to pull back naval forces towards safer areas near the peninsula and Sicily
Offensive actions in west can now begin
Using Corsica and Balearic Islands as bases, Sicilian position on Sardinia begin to be attacked heavily
Mainland Tuscan areas begin to be bombed too
By mid-February, Greek forces in Libya, reinforced by recruits from Egypt, begin to push back the Sicilians.
Sicilians only being supplied through Tunisia now
Will take a couple months
In the Ionians, Sicily manages to finally secure Zakynthos by mid-January
Has cost them a lot of troops from the mainland
IPA troops, heavily reinforced by volunteers from the Alpines and Northern Italy, and armed by the Alpine Confederation, begin to launch attacks against Sicily around Elba, San Marino, and southern Tuscany in February
Genoa lands on Elba, the Tuscans backed by volunteers assault weakened positions in Tuscany, and the San Marinos, with most of the volunteers and Venetian naval support, attack towards Urbino
Northern volunteers, reinforced by Venetians and under their command, move forward between San Marino and Tuscany
The IPA makes advances, but very slowly, as they are attacking into areas where Sicily has supporters
By the end of February, surt has been retaken by the Greek Federation
Sicilian recruits are now mostly being sent towards the peninsula, to reinforce positions there against the IPA and continue the assault in the Ionians
Corsica sends forces to aid Genoan Marines around Elba, in the Tuscan Archipelago, which they have secured by this time (mid-march), and they are landing on the peninsula opposite the island to aid the Tuscans
In the Ionians, Greece lands troops on Kefalonia again in late march, securing it again by April.
Sicily is putting its effort into trying to capture Corfu, which is holding out
After the initial bombardments, Heptanesa evacuated civilians on the islands to the mainland
In the west, the combined fleet is working on strangling off Sardinia from Sicily itself, with some success, though supplies are still being delivered at night and under air cover in the southeast
Preparations are being made to invade the island
Sicilian forces in Libya are still being pushed backwards - by april they are about 75 miles northwest of surt
Resistance in Tunisia is getting worse, as the lack of trade and slowing of supplies have meant less rations for the locals
The end of the Saguenay war in April, and the signing of peace in may, causes concern for Sicily
Elements begin to question "profit" in the war
Forces from North America will not arrive in number until august
Sicilian reinforcements to the Ionians begin to dry up
Zakynthos is retaken, as well as couple of smaller islands, by mid-June
Fighting continues on Corfu
By early June, the forces in the west have finally gotten a force together to land on Sardinia
They invade on June 14th or so
Surprise the Sicilian garrison by landing in the northeast, rather than north or northwest, as had been expected
Surprise because of it being closer to Sicilian bases on the mainland than the northwest
By this time, the Sicilians on Corfu are still doing well
In Libya, Greco-Libyan-Egyptian forces have liberated misratah by late June
They are experiencing some resistance behind their lines, but it is minimal in nature.
The IPA in Italy has managed to advance to a rough line from coast to coast running along a line from roughly Grosseto-Arezzo-Senigallia
Advances are getting very difficult
Middle section going slowest due to terrain
Naval elements, along with some marines, begin to arrive from NA in early July
Rest of Celtic fleet, plus a small number of Canadian ships
With air cover from Corsica, and new airfields in north Sardinia providing air cover too, advances in Sardinia going well by mid-July
Northern half under their control, with the center of the island stalling and advances being made on the coasts
Resistance will continue in areas of the center and the port at Carbonia for almost all of the remainder of the war
Celtic armored troops from NA arrive in early august
Used to take rest of the island over the rest of august, except areas as noted already
Greek forces manage to finally expel the last Sicilian troops from the Ionians in early September
Reinforcements had shrunk drastically to the Sicilians with the Sardinia attack and a new concentration of troops near the Italian front
Italian front-lines by September shifted slightly to a line running Scansano-Corciano-Ancona
Early September shows the Greek forces in Libya retaking Al-Khums, just east of the limits of Greek-controlled territory
Rif and Spanish infantry, with Celtic and some Nordic armored forces land in northwest Tunisia, near the town of Tabaka, around September 20th, and fan out from there
Algerian nations lend some form of aid for this, as per their dislike of the Sicilians
As they receive news of the landing, Muslims in several areas of Tunisia begin to revolt, causing great headaches for the Sicilians, who are close in number to the invaders
Sicilian troops from in Libya pull back to Tunisia
Sicilian units establish defensive positions in the center and northeast of Tunisia (no point defending the deserts)
Greeks do not chase from Libya
Need r+r time, etc.
Secondary landings occur around the town of Gabes in late September
Civilians move back to Ionians, troops there recuperate, and the invasion plans for Lecce province are changed, with experiences from the first time, etc. added
By mid-October, the combination of ADC troops and rebels has forced the Sicilians into an area running roughly from Bizerte-Kairouan-Agarab
In late October, IPA forces reached the southernmost limits of their advance, a line running roughly Montalto di Castro-Orvieto-Perugia-Fanriano-Loreto
In November, intel that Sicily had been prepping a counter-attack in Italy is proven correct
By the end of the war, the IPA has been forced back somewhat, to a line running roughly Montalto di Castro-Corciano-Fabriano-Osimo
Sicily definitely has a lot of power left in its main territories
IPA forces to mange to free New Rome as well
On Sardinia, Sicilian forces in the center of the island surrender in late October
The port still holds out
It will hold out until near the end of the war
Assault by besiegers and marines secures it early December
During November, Armored attacks in Tunisia, aided by rebels force the Sicilians back to A half-circle going from roughly Bizerte-Nabeul
By the end of the war, they are left with the city of Tunis itself - under siege
As part of the ceasefire agreement these forces are allowed to return to Sicily
Maybe half of Sicilian forces survive to retreat back to Sicily
In Greece, with the completion of fighting in Bulgaria, Rhodope forces can finally fulfill their end of the Thrace security agreement by mid-November
This frees up a few thousand Greek troops, who are moved to the Ionians
Early December (~12th or so) sees the Greeks launch another invasion of the boot
This time, it is landed at Tricase, not near Lecce like before
Proves slightly more successful this time, advancing to just north of Lecce by the end of the war
Despite their relative strength, Sicily views the war as no longer worth it after Lecce is lost.
Basically, they are beginning to counter the IPA in Italy (and would in time push them back, I assume)
Sicily itself is too strong to capture without significant casualties
With Nordic pressure, the ADC accepts the ceasefire with Sicily, despite the desire of others (Spain and Greece) to keep going and get rid of Sicily
ADC makes sure that the IPA is included in this
Only Nordic condition
Nordic Union is more concerned with affairs to their east and want the matter settled as soon as possible
Ceasefire ends fighting, but does not solve much of anything
Enforced by ANZC fleet
i.e. neutrality will not happen next time, more likely than not
Sicily is still pretty strong
Maybe half their navy is gone, but the Greeks have also lost ~1/3rd of theirs
Air forces are still fairly intact on Sicily and on the mainland, though a good portion has been destroyed by more advanced planes
Their army is still pretty intact too
Simply put, the losses now outweigh the potential gains, leading to the cease-fire though they will profit in the end from not having to deal with as many resistance groups
The Greek federation members of Cyrenica and Heptanesa suffer a fair amount of damage
The IPA is now exhausted by fighting.
Out of action for quite some time after this
Squabbles over what to do with territory recaptured from Sicily, outside of the borders of Tuscany
Genoan interests in the Tuscan islands (Elba, etc.)
Joint admin by IPA over captured territories, divided into occupation zones with a new Alpine line between the two sides, based at New Rome, at the center of a neutral zone.
Zones will either be added to the IPA members or made into independent states
Sardinia, Lecce, and Tunisia, as well as Italy, greatly harmed by fighting
Effectively a status quo on the ground that remains, aside from Tunis
Tunisia will be given independence, after a short period as a joint Spanish-Rif mandate under the LoN in which things will be repaired and the former resistance leaders will be aided in setting up a government
To last no longer than a year
Sardinia will be put under a IPA mandate for the time being, with secondary support from Corsica.
Eventually, a two-stage referendum on independence or joining another nation-state (in the IPA, most likely) will be held (top two choices from first round going to second)
No later than two years from now
Lecce Province will be made a mandate under the Greeks
A similar referendum to Sardinia was also occur here eventually
Issues that started the war remain.
ADC agrees to officially recognize southern Italy, outside of Lecce, as being a Sicilian territory "de jure" rather than "de facto" as had been previously
Sicily does not drop any of their claims, however... setting the stage for a future third war.
While Sicily loses territory, and some resources, they also have a lot less territory to defend now, with the same rough amount of loyal troops
Relative position of strength - any wars to actually remove the regime will be long and hard
I'm thinking eventually we're going to have Cyprus situation on our hands with Sardinia. The Sicilians were the first real government to take control post-doomsday, and likely settled the island while they were rebuilding the infrastructure when they took over almost 7 years ago, so there's likely a large % of the population thats loyal to Sicily and would like to rejoin them after the war. I also think a referendum for Lecce would be a mistake on the ADC's part, as it would likely just vote to rejoin Sicily, removing the entire point of holding the territory.Oerwinde 21:58, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
Never said that any of them would have that particular option - rejoining Sicily, that is - at all, Oer ;)
Sardinia may well have had some sort of government - its just never been established one way or the other. As I said, aside from not going to Sicily, their ultimate fate is to be decided later.
Oh, yeah I probably should have mentioned this but way back in November of '09 when it was all of Apulia was to be taken, Greece was going to flood Southern Italy with Greeks and try to get as many Griko-speakers into their mandate as possible. Now with the region being a lot smaller the Gov't'll probably just try to get as many Griko-speakers into Lecce as possible, followed by Orthodox-Christian Albanians, followed by a small cadre of Greeks from the mainland. I was also planning on the Republic of the Holy Mountain sending missionaries to convert the Catholic-Sicilians to Orthodoxy and the Uniates of Sicily as well. Perhaps, they might be taken into their own Sicilian-Rite or for the new Latin-Sicilians a "Western Rite" Orthodoxy. Also, I wanted to see a a few Norman and E. Roman chapels in Southern Italy become Orthodox-Christian.
Mr.Xeight 22:55, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
That would never work or be permitted by the Nordic Union, the other Italian states, and several other members of the ADC. Neither would want to see Sicilian imperialism be replaced by Greek imperialism.
Also, Oer is correct. Sardinia would remain pro-Sicily. Imo, the most plausible scenario for Sicily and Lecce is that both are forcibly demilitarize for a period of 5-10 years, but revert back to Sicilian control within 12 months. The ADC may keep garrisons in each territory for up to 5 years, but after which they must withdraw.
But if you have a referendum, the option to rejoin Sicily would be on the referendum. You couldn't leave it out, nor would any democratically minded nation allow it to be left out, especially the Nordics or Celts. While yes those territories would revert to Sicily, the ADC would have achieved its goal which is preventing Sicilian expansion and liberating part of Italy. They're a defensive organization that seeks to protect their members, not an offensive one interested in deposing governments. Caeruleus 00:31, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. I don't think the greeks should get all of Lecce province, maybe just a single area that would be home to an ADC military base but under Greek administration. Maybe Otranto or something like that. The greeks can still flood the city with people and such, but other than the city itself and possibly some cultural trickle in the area around. It would also avoid the need for a referendum in an area that would be overwhelmingly pro-sicily.
I think the situation in Sardinia would be you'd either demilitarize it and revert control after a period, or hold a referendum. Independence isn't really feasable at this time so it would be more likely they would want to join an established state. Choices likely being Tuscany, Genoa, or Sicily. Sicily brought them out of whatever slump they were in, rebuilt roads and industry, then were forced out. Sicily is the largest of the Italian states, and the rest are propped up by the Alpine Confederation, so Sicily would look like the most likely successor to Italy gaining it a lot of support from that as well. If the referendum doesn't show support for joining sicily in the majority, those in favor would likely rise up under a call of like "One Italy" or "No Swiss Puppet" or something. Eventually we'd have either Sicily regaining it, or the island split between Sicily and an IPA nation.
With Turkey feeling out Sicily as an ally, the ADC wouldn't likely want to start another war too soon, so returning Sardinia and keeping its holdings in Lecce to a smaller territory would likely stave off such a war for a while. Enough for the IPA to rebuild now that Tuscany has been liberated and San Marino is in full control of its territories as well.
3rd Sicily war isn't going to be the 3rd Sicily war, its going to be a full on Mediterranean War, as by then Croatia and Slovenia will be ADC members, Macedonia will join in with Turkey, and Serbia would take advantage to try to retake the lands stolen by Macedonia. The Spanish Republic will likely have expanded, Algeria will likely have joined the ADC by then with their Greek ties, and with a Tunisian government established by the ADC, it will likely be ADC as well. Only part of the Mediterranean not involved will be Monaco.Oerwinde 03:34, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
I have replied to Oer's comments and the two rants on the talk page for the article, where they should have left in the first place. Lordganon 12:28, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
I believe that I got everything in my notes on the page now. Did I miss anything? Does anyone have a comment on it that's actually worth something?
More importantly, are there any objections to graduation? lol
An article created by an anon. The region of New Jersey this is in, as I wrote on its talk page, is listed as having received several nuclear strikes, in relation to NYC, on the New York City article.
Another of the Central Asian nations I've created, this time based on Türkistan, Kazakhstan. --Fedelede 02:06, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
Like I wrote on the talk page, half of the territory you currently have them in is already under Siberian control, and the rest is right against it. Needs to be reworked, though I don't think any more states in Kazakhstan is plausible. Lordganon 05:31, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
