Discussion from main page

1st, the literally; some ideas for future events for this timeline:
French reunification as the 7th french republic sometime this decade.

Geman reuinfication as the German Confederation sometime between 2015 and 2020.

American reuinfication between 2018 and 2023.

Any thoughts? (I'm not trying to do a future history, just butting ideas out their)

Metaphorically, it strikes me that this timeline (or, more specifically, us editors) will not be here forever, so how about a book? a proper, real life book detailing this timeline and everything in it? (again, this is just a suggestion).HAD 19:46, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to turn it into a book, but most likely it would be a novel about the rise of a new North America. The task of just putting together the project after it is finished -- with perhaps a spirited account of competing ideals and resulting compromises by various authors -- might be a possibility as well. My novel, though, may not be as "true" to the time line as a book about the project would have to be. SouthWriter 01:02, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
How do you reunite the entire U.S.? Such a venture would involve massive investment - the power grid, telecommunications, rebuilding the interstate system. Mexico, or the SAC, or the ANZC would almost certainly be involved; I don't think the survivor nations would be able to truly unify in name and in deed by 2023 without that massive infrastructure investment. Also: the LoN would insist on investigating the missile sites for any remaining nukes, and that the new U.S. not use nukes in any manner (would they be able to do so with the new USSR)?
And, how big would the new America be? Yank's already said many times he doesn't want Virginia involved, and by his comments I assume he feels the same way for Lincoln. So, a reunified U.S. with independent nations scattered in the midwest, south, Dakotas, and out west might be intriguing. BrianD 14:03, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree, an entirely unified U.S. would be out of the question, but one centered around the PUSA would be more plausible, as soon as they loose the provisional title. And since you brought it up Brian, I'll state my opinion on the whole nuke business concerning the USSR. I've been tiptoeing around it from the start, but yes, I do believe they have a sizeable amount of unused nukes and I can't see any way that the LoN could do anything about it. They would just have to agree that they were in reasonable hands and be done with it.--Vladivostok 14:12, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, Brians suggestion on on a midwest USA with other nations scattered around does sound more plausible. Maybe they would be members of an extended NAU? And i know public opinion does not matter for much in the USSR, but surely their would be a massive revulsion amoungst the Soviet people about Thermonuclear weapons remaining on their territory?HAD 17:08, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons is going to eventually become the biggest issue for the LoN. Everyone knows what nukes did to the world the first time around. Everyone knows that another nuclear exchange is basically Armageddon, with no place to escape. I'm surprised we haven't addressed this already. BrianD 02:15, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm cynical to think that even though people will try to limit or eradicate nuclear weapons, governments will continue to produce them in secret in fear of not having them in case someone else uses it again. Mitro 03:26, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Germany reunifying. Bavaria is likely to join the Alpine Confederation, and Prussia and North Germany have different government systems. One or the other would have to completely abandon their system of government in order to unify, so I doubt that is going to happen. I could see it eventually solidifying into Prussian, North German, and Alpine territory. Discussion on Germany

Some of my thoughts on geopolitics:

  1. ANZC continues to fall behind South America. There might be a period of competition with nation building in South Asia and Africa, but in the end the ANZC will work with the South America nations.
  2. South America becomes the most advanced region in the world. The internet as we know it OTL will happen here. The SAC will continue to integrate.
  3. New Cold War between the SAC and the USSR. It will begin with competition over Central America (there is a rather large communist presence there), but spread worldwide. ANZC, the ADC and other nations will be drawn into it. Might even see the return of a nuclear arms race (though it would be very secret).
  4. USSR keeps expanding westward. More survivor states end up like Aralia. ADC grows as a result, tensions increase.
  5. Sicily is dealt (and probably very soon). Its "empire" is broken apart and a new government comes to power. ADC still has the USSR to contend with.
  6. Regional blocs integrate in North America. Confederation of New England is created, Dixie Alliance evolves, the two Texases unite, the NAU expands, the former provisional USA grabs a few new states, etc. Though a reviatalized USA as we know it is unlikely. I think we all wrote the history to a point where that is impossible.

Mitro 23:31, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Now that you mention the internet, all I want to know is who invents this timeline's version of the iPad? :) BrianD 02:15, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Mitro's ideas sound a) sensible and b) plausible. and in answer to BrianDs question, i would guess that Ipods and such and such wont appear until around 2022ish. --HAD 09:14, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but we must remember, Apple was up and running before Bill Gates made his deal with IBM. It was not until 1984 in OTL that Microsoft and other "IBM compatible" personal computers overtook and far surpassed Apple. With dealers in America and Japan, the Apple machines surpassed Atari, and most certainly were in use in Australia and New Zealand -- and of course in Hawaii and Alaska. There was not a large scale loss of power infastructure -- and only regional EMPs near the bombed cities -- in these Anglophone nations and states. By 1983 there had to be technicians and even computer scientists affiliated with ANZUS. I'd say that Apple would have become the standard far sooner than the 2010's! SouthWriter 01:02, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to say a couple of things, firstly, of course people aren't happy in Siberia regarding nuclear weapons, but it is seen as a deterrent. Either that or it's simply kept secret for practical reasons, I haven't really decided on that. Maybe it's just a secret that everybody already knows about
I was also wondering, is the whole France business building up to some sort of French unification? I mean, what would be an acceptable time frame? Also, is the Spanish Republic going to approve joining with Pais del Oro? And what of the readiness of other Spanish survivor states?
And since Sicily was mentioned, what's happening on that whole front, is there a war going on or isn't there? The same question goes for the Saguenay War, is there any consensus on the winners and aftermath of these conflicts?--Vladivostok 14:16, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the French are moving toward unification. My anticipation is that there will be sincere talks by 2015 about restoration. For the present, the RFTA will be supporting clean-up, restoration, unification. Poitou-Charentes and Auvergne will receive help first, and will unify territory. There will be tension with Monaco and Grand-Andorra because their governments will not want to return "French" territory. This will lead to further discussions, and with these discussions, by 2015, the Seventh Republic will be established, but it will be a very loose Republic and more of a Confederation at first because of the strong independence feelings of the various nation-states that have joined together to restore France. (Including Corsica, IMHO). That's my "Grand-Master Plan" Louisiannan 15:03, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

So we'll have a French 7th Republic by 2015, a trivided Germany and an USA that streches from the Canadian border to the Texan border, including Pasco and Spokane, as well as Lousiana and Piedmont+Blue Ridge as geograpically seperatte but politicaly together (think Kalingrad or Hawei or Alaska?--HAD 16:26, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

I see the NAU replacing the US - loose Confederacies seem to be the way things are moving with the exception of the ANZC - the LoN actually was more of a confederative body than the UN, as I understand it. And speaking for Utah/Dinetah - I could see both participating in the NAU, but not the PUSA. Louisiannan 18:06, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

The USA would exist as Part of the NAU i take it?HAD 18:45, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I took so long to get into this discussion. However, the act of unifying a number of willing states not require such a "massive investment" as one might think. A large majority of surviving Americans would not wish to give up on the USA after only a quarter century. The fact that the federal government had given up on them after a short visit to one state (the former California) will certainly be held against any new centralized government, but the new constitution of the PUSA is truly new, it will certainly take this into account. The ANZC, if it is to remain a major power in the world, must work toward a North American Union which includes a strong, and significantly large Unitied States. A loose NAU will not be a match to the growing power of the SAC. It must be an alliance of nations of significant strength and size to match those to the south.SouthWriter 01:02, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

As for the future of "Britain" I did have an idea for a kind of talking shop among the various survivor state which could at some point in the future develop into something along the line of the European Union in OTL Verence71 21:02, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Idea for article

I think some of the ideas expressed above could be used to write another WCRB report, similar to the one Brian did for the southern US. Feel free to add to the article, I think a good collaborative effort is in store. Mitro 00:48, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. What did you have in mind? --GOPZACK 01:25, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

is anything gonna be done with this in the near future?HAD 15:26, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

USSR ideas

I wanted to share with you a couple of ideas regarding Siberian expansion in the future:

  • 2011: Ural Territory is formally admitted into the RSFSR and the Kazakh SSR. Oblasts and ASSR-s are established and further ties to their respective Republics are set. Some of the strain on the country is alleviated due to the decreased military presence in the region. GLONASS network completed by early December. Northern lands in Russia reaching Soviet Karelia are organized into the North Russian Territory. Referendum held in Karelia regarding them becoming part of the USSR again. Tensions between the Nordic Union, ADC on one side, and the Siberians on the other become more widely felt.
  • 2013:Siberian forces occupy the entire former territory of the Kazakh SSR not under direct control. Aralia is absorbed and the entire new territory is named simply the Aralian Territory. It becomes a part of the SSR in 4-5 years. Northern Alliance forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan and its puppet nation in Afghanistan agree to divide the land. Primorskaya Territory incorporated into the RSFSR.
  • 2014:Tajikistan and Kirgizstan are also occupied by the USSR, a territory encompassing both lands is proclaimed.
  • 2015: The North Russian Territory, along with Soviet Karelia and the Kola Peninsula are once again part of the RSFSR.
  • 2016:If the MLA is going to be canon, then this would be the year I planned the Siberians start taking over their controlled lands in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, occupying both by 2017-18. Insurgency lasts for several years.
  • 2018-19:Kazakhstan is back to Pre-Doomsday borders, Tajikistan and Kirgizstan become republics once more.
  • 2021:Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan become republics again, the insurgency continues, but support from Iran is beginning to dwindle.
  • 2023: Operation "Drive to the West" begins. Remaining parts of the RSFSR and the Caucasus region are taken over, with nations in the Caucasus crushed, if they don't won't to enter willingly. Another territory is established. The demonym "Siberian" stops being used.
  • 2024: Operation "Southern anvil" is launched with help from Korea. Remaining lands in Manchuria divided between the two countries.
  • 2026-27: War with Ukrainian survivor state(s)- Ukrainian Territory established. Belarus, Karelia, Estland, Lithuania and Latvia, all probably in the ADC begin to arm themselves.
  • 2028:RSFSR complete again, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia reestablished as USSR's states.

There, that's where I see them going. Perhaps I'm overly optimistic with the dates, and I didn't factor in any Chinese land grab other than Manchuria, but this is only a projection, even though I didn't write it as such. Use what you like out of this Mitro, no pressure. You can state that it was a leaked Siberian dossier or something snazzy like that.--Vladivostok 20:44, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

I think Aralia should remain a satelit state for the next decade. The opposition against an early annexation would be too strong. Furthermore, I would expect the USSR to focus more on Europe rather than the problematic Central Asia. Maybe Tadjikistan and other Central Asian countries should remain independent and annex some of the former Afghan territory. --Grand Prince Paul II. 21:01, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Quite Ambitious, Vlad. However, I don't think that the LoN will stand and let a member state expand so quickly -- even if it is to "reclaim" former territory. The Virginian Republic has been being "denied" membership for its expansionist tendencies. I suppose the LoN would probably take this "leaked document" as grounds for "serious talks" with the Siberian government. SouthWriter 21:26, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well guys, as I said, just a bit of thinking ahead on my part, other than reclaiming the northern parts up to Karelia and disbanding the Ural Territory, the rest of it doesn't have to come to pass, as I said, it's just a projection. Now I think the drive would be to annex Central Asia sooner because t certainly wasn't nuked as much, while oposition, although fierce in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, it wouldn't be as harsh in other parts. Now South, this is expansionist, of course. But unlike Virginia, the USSR is the recognized legitimate successor to the old USSR and it is one of the most powerful nations in the world. Plus, the territory described doesn't have any states in it as far as canon goes so far. Virginia on the other hand is expanding into perceived "new" territory, as it does distance itself from the former United States. Furthermore, Virginia was discoverd a year ago and is one of unestablished nations as far as any global political pull is concerned.--Vladivostok 21:35, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. "Siberia" is the legitimate successof of the old USSR, and it was big enough to have a global presense a lot earlier than any of the American states. Meanwhile Virginia has been active almost as long while being ignored ("discovered") by a negligent absentee government. One can see why Virginia, though it began as a "rogue state," would consider its mission to reclaim whatever lands it could in the name of a new republic based mostly on the principles of the old USA. Being one of the most powerful American states it came to believe that the old republic was lost, and that a new start made sense. The LoN was founded only a little before Virginia and other American states were found to be thriving. The fact that the USSR of TTL had long been posturing itself as THE major power of the Northern Hemisphere does not make it any "more legitimate" when it comes to being admitted to the LoN. The ideals of the LoN are being violated if the USSR begins retaking lands that have arisen fromt the ashes of its former client states. Yes, politics will be politics. But I think that the LoN may indeed be having those "serious talks" with their "friends" in the north.SouthWriter 13:28, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but you must admit that Siberia has way more power in the world than Virginia-sized states, even though Virginia is more well-off than some others. And Siberia is a continental representative of the LoN, you have to admit it has some right to call itself "THE major power" of the Northern Hemisphere, simply because there is no state currently up north with the same pull in global affairs, even though this influence is eclipsed by the ANZC's and SAC's influence. In any case, I don't see it as taking land from sovereign, established nations. No mention of absorbing Belarus or the Republic of Karelia and the Baltic states was given, as they are known to exist. I also thought an independent Ukrainian state would probably emerge. I'm simply writting under the assumption there is no other states where Siberia is going. When the articles on other states are written, then this will be of course cause to change their strategy.--Vladivostok 20:35, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia? I'm doing articles about them... on them, Georgia has just recieved radio transmissions from the USSR. If I am able to continue as I want, the Caucasus will be an alliance of several sovereign states by 2020. I don't believe they would like to be annexed by Russia... they might have an organized military to contrarrest the Russian. And remember that tactics win on the Caucasus, not numbers or technology... Fedelede 00:53, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. If events play out like this, its gonna a be the Cold War all over again! I've always maintained that Humanity repeats its mistakes over and over again and that the greatest of us are rembered for not making these mistakes. HAD 18:36, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Italy Ideas

my ideas for Italy:

2010: Second Sicily War starts

2011: Sicily advances through Northern Italy

2011: Tuscany joins the ADC

2012: Tides turn

Late 2012: Sicily is defeated.

Late 2012 or early 2013: Sicily made peace with the ADC. Different regions of Italy are released as puppet states.

2015: Southern Italy, held by Greece, is released as another puppet. Sicily is left officialy with Sardinia and Sicily.

around 2020: The ADC releases the countries as independent states; all are fully fledged members of the ADC.

2021: Sicily is a threat again, Third Sicilian War occurs.

2025: Sicily loses all territories. Maffia starts to be erradicated.

2035: Sicily, free of maffia, is re-implanted as a puppet nation.

2040: Italian members of the ADC re-build Rome as radiation is almost finished. Italian states, along with the ADC as a whole, join the SAC on the Cold War against the USSR. Fedelede 01:16, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

I like this plus it gives me some inspiration for a Chumash-Santa Cruz War, heres what I thought of.

August 2010: The rediscovery of oil in Kern County escalates tensions between the two nations.

October 2010: Santa Cruz places soldiers on the northern border of Chumash.

Later October 2010: On October 31st Santa Cruz soldiers open fire on Chumash soldiers and advance southward.

Early November 2010: Santa Cruz sees global political sanctions, as they continue to advance southward.

Late November 2010: A draft conscription is incorporated in Chumash, Santa Cruz forces advance eastward to secure oil fields in Kern.

December 2010: The Chumash Republic officially stakes claim to all counties east of there nation up to the Nevada border.

January 2011: Santa Cruz tries a new war tactic and tries to move troops in eastward then advance westward.

March 2011: The Santa Cruz strategy to move westward backfires and they are forced to retreat back to Monterey where they make a formal annexation of the county.

April 2011: The Chumash Republic calls for a coalition of forces to defeat Santa Cruz, they organize the Alaska Free State, and the Municipal States of the Pacific, and form the Circrum Pacific Alliance.

Early May 2011: Santa Cruz counters the formation of the Circrum Pacific Alliance, and along with Ventura forms the Trans Pacific Union.

Late May 2011: Ventura attempts to invade Chumash from the north.

June 2011: Alaska and the MSP launch an invasion, in order to occupy Santa Cruz from the north.

July 2011: Venturas attempted invasion of Chumash fails.

August 2011: Chumash is now engaged on two fronts, one is in Monterrey in an attempt to counter Santa Cruz invaders, the other is in Ventura attempting to occupy the whole of the country.

September 2011: Ventura surrenders and is occupied, most Santa Cruz soldiers are forced to retreat to there mainland.

December 2011: The Circrum Pacific Alliance launches an operation to end the war once and for all the mission dubbed "Operation Humpback Whale" is due to begin in one month.

January 2012: On January 1, Operation Humpback Whale begins the bloodiest battle to date on the Pacific coast of North America, results in a turning point.

April 2012: Santa Cruz leader Vilodari Scholari, is captured.

May 2012: After a long trial Violdari Scholari, is sentenced to life in prison in a Russian Gulag.

June 2012: A replacement government is put in place for Santa Cruz, and Ventura, slavery is abolished, this also includes the partition of Monterrey at the 42nd parallel. Riley.Konner 14:27, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

A Forum for Future Histories?

Is this talk page becoming a forum for Future Histories? Most of the nations as of 2010 don't have sufficient time lines to explain the present!

For example, I am still pressed to explain the WCRB's belated exploration of the very much alive Southeastern US. As we continue to re-evaluate the assumptions that began this time line over two years ago, the survivor nations become more complicated than anticipated. And now, the WCRB is offering a forum (so far only on the talk page) for Future time line plots!

I guess it is alright to let others know where you want to go with your story, but sometimes a future needs a firm foundation upon which to build. SouthWriter 19:35, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

The WCRB was not created until 2004 and then it was only an organization for the ANZC. It did not become a worldwide organization until 2009 when it came under the control of the LoN. Because of how short its existence has been it makes sense that it took them so long to write a report detailing the knowledge about the southeastern US. Granted the report might seem written that no one has bothered to explore the area since the WCRB, but the Cubans have been investigating the area as have other survivor states that have had earlier contact with the rest of the world. Mitro 19:49, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
That certainly explains why they didn't come sooner. I guess what I was wondering was why efforts weren't made earlier. Most of the southern hemisphere had the technology -- vehicles, radios, even computers. And it is hard to understand there not being ANYONE who would have sent expeditions sooner. Canon has cruise ships bringing refugees from North America from both coasts. Are we to believe no one was going to attempt contact with anyone left behind?
I am trying to work within canon, its just that sometimes things don't seem to be right. Thanks for putting up with me. SouthWriter 21:59, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
There really was no one to do that. The South Americans, maybe, but we know they had a lot of problems of their own before finally getting their collective act together in 2004 - largely in response to their perception that an Australian attack was imminent! Before then, I am sure that the South Americans traded informally with settlements on the coasts and, maybe, ventured up to see what they could find. But they really had no incentives to do so. It was only with the coming of a more stable global community that things like the WCRB could be undertaken in a deliberate, organized way. Benkarnell 20:21, April 27, 2010 (UTC)


From what i can see Africa looks to be on its way to being devided into four distinct power blocks. The north seems to be dominated by the ADC, the South is slowly becoming dominated by the New Britain backed AEC (With the exception of the Peoples Republic of Angola), the East is curently dominated by the CAMC (And will stay so if no one else makes countries in East Africa) and obviously the West is dominated by the WAU. Thoughts please?Vegas adict 20:12, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Agree for the most part, though I doubt the AEC would end dominating the South. So far, half of its memberstates are either fairly isolated (Botswana) or quite reluctant (KwaXhosa). --Grand Prince Paul II. 18:41, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
We still don't know what's happening in the old heart of South Africa, in the Gauteng region around Jo'burg. The Azanian League is (probably) a power to be reckoned with down there. Depending on its relations with N.Britain, it may or may not be a participant in the AEC. I don't think that N.Britain is in the position to be a hegemon in South Africa, much as it might want to be. Finally, don't forget the continued presence of Oz-Kiwi and South American troops in the western Cape. The RZA remains something akin to Iraq under US occupation - nominally independent, but the government is basically a client of the occupiers. There may or may not be a rump Republic of the Cape beyond the RZA's frontiers, and the old Cape government had allies in the other members of the New Union. So all we can really say about South Africa is that (1) it's mostly unwritten, adn (2) it's definitely complicated. Benkarnell 20:02, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

French Republic or Kingdom?

Since it's mentioned that the Seventh Republic would be a constitutional monarchy, wouldn't it be contradictory? Odds are, the "Third Kingdom of France" sounds more apropriate. 07:35, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


Is there any likelihood of a conflict between Prussia and the Nordic Union? Fegaxeyl 20:52, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

If Prussia actually pursues its expansionist rhetoric, maybe. Benkarnell 21:16, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

New United Kingdom?

Does anyone think that the Organisation of British Nations will eventually evolve into a Second Kingdom of Great Britain. Any Irish land is out of the question, but it is plausible that the English states excepting Rheged will unite and anti-Celtic sentiment in Scotland and its ties to other states like East Britain could well lead to a United Kingdom that is considerably smaller but not insignificant. Though the clashing systems of government across the island would probably not lead to a Second Kingdom (mostly because we've got multiple monarchies) but to a British Confederacy. Bob 09:55, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I believe I mentioned this on the talk page...

"We already know Cleveland and Northumbria will unite, regardless, and though Essex and Woodbridge have somewhat larger gaps [politically] I would posit a possible unification [of those nations] within a few decades, possibly with later absorption of East Britain and recognising the current monarch (who might well be Prince Bob himself at the time!) as theirs. You'd have a solid power base in East Anglia for that nation, and then in the future the new Essex-Woodbridge-East British nation of Anglia might marry with the Albionic rulers to form a single new united kingdom, provided political differences don't enter the mix (Essex is reasonably resentful of the Celtic Alliance's celticism, much less so in the north). This would leave only Southern England (which would plausibly gravitate towards either Anglia or the Celtic Alliance) and the Scottish New State (which if it continues on track will still be hostile to the Celts and allied to Anglia, or completely conquered). Of course, this is a plausible extrapolation of the current situation, much less what we as editors might want."

Given that the OBN states have considerable British sentiment the likelihood of war to flush the CA out of the island of Britain between them and the Celtic Alliance is great, if they have a warmongering leader and a political atmosphere that makes a war feasible and economical (as far as war goes). Exactly what happens about the New British throne remains questionable; they would either drift away from Britain-Anglia-Second Kingdom of Great Britain-whatever, or they would marry and create the nation of 'The United Kingdom of Anglia, Albion and South Africa'. Fegaxeyl 10:49, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

I doubt New Britain can get really involved in Old Britain. They are a regional power at best, and are becoming culturally, ethnically and politically more African all the time. The ruling Imperial Party may aim towards the creation of a British African Empire but I think that the future for New Britain lies in the extension of the African Economic Community from a small clique of New Britain backed states to a larger less New Britain based AEC, then into an EU like form with power resting mostly in the hands of Botswana and New Britain and finally the transition into a Confederacy of Great Africa.

Future map

I'm sure many of you have heard me bashing 83:DD and saying how "Its about dead" every time it becomes the highest edited page. I'd like to apologize, as I realized that I may have offended some specific users. Then, to those users whom I have offended it may come as a shock to know that I like 83:DD. Thats right, you heard right. EE likes 1983:DD, and it happens to be one of his favorite timelines. So, out of a combination of hoping for forgiveness, trying to add some little piece to the crown of 83:DD, and just because I like making maps,

I have decided to make a map of what (I think) the world would look like if this TL could be continued.

Before I show it, know that its not done and that I would like it if you told me about whatever nation(s) you're in charge of.

Here you goEastward Expansion 21:45, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I could see the Virginian Republic eventually absorbing the other members of the Dixie Alliance. And perhaps the rest of the survivor states in the area east of the Mississippi as well. After all, a lot can happen in 100 years.

Yankovic270 22:47, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I feel that Macedonia would probably also expand north into the upper balkans, it seems Rhodope isn't on this map so I predict that they have conquered them, and, besides Greece, with no other power in the Balkans, Macedonia would probably have the ability to expand into the rest of the Balkan peninsula. Ownerzmcown 22:52, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Don't listen to Yank on the Virginian Republic. That would have to be done by force if it ever were to happen. And all of the survivor nations combined could overthrow Virginia in a heartbeat. I'm not going to get into a big argument here, but as someone else once stated he is "out to lunch with Virginia and everyone but him knows it".

South Florida might eventually rename itself the Republic of Florida and control all of the state up to the panhandle. And Plymouth will take whatever Vermont doesn't take. I could see New England itself eventually uniting, and the members of the Dixie Alliance may eventually merge into a unified state that is NOT centered around Virginia.

The Celtic Alliance will take over the rest of Wales and Scotland, but the states in England will problably merge together. Arstarpool 23:30, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the map, and went with Arstar on the Dixie issue (sorry Yank). What do you think guys think would happen too...


Mexico and America's Southwest?

That area South of India?


And remember, just because I don't have some countries doesn't mean I think they would collapse. I think by 2100, there would once again be borders.

Eastward Expansion 00:38, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

What about Turkey? I could imagine them ruling some more land in the Middle East. Ownerzmcown 01:02, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

There's too many states in the northern Balkans for Macedonia to get much bigger than its current size - and not into Bulgaria/Rhodope either.

Much of the Northern areas of the NAU on that map are part of anti-NAU states, or Victoria.

The northern third of victoria there is part of Alaska. And, the eastern half of Alaska is in territorial governments that are effectively independant of Canada - and will both very willingly join as soon as possible. Victoria and the Canadian government currently in the NAU are in that camp as well, for that matter.

Sanquay~ in central Quebec is missing, and Superior (given proposals for southern Ontario) Wouldn't have near so much territory.

Current long-terms plans for France are to have it be re-established, with some small chunks of its territory taken by Monaco, Andorra, Luxembourg, and the Celtics.

The Canaucus~ is not empty of states, and Korea would be independent.

Indonesia and the Southeast Asia / Middle East nations should be added.

I don't see Israel giving up the Sinai THAT easily.

Italy on your map would need to be some sort of confederation. And Sicily would eventually be forced from the mainland, too.

Greece would have territory further north, too.

Prussia has given up on territory east of its current position, and short of war North Germany wouldn't join them - and Prussia couldn't beat them, either.

The more central areas of Germany - those not under Luxish~ control - would have allied together, but only at a bare minimum. Political positions of most if not all are against both Prussia and Alpines~.

The only Alpine territory in Germany is likely to be Bavaria.

The nations of Yugoslavia~!

Assiniboia, in southern Manitoba, northwest minni~ and north east N. Dakota.

The USSR would have gotten further West.

Eastern Texas should be added to the NAU.

Poland and Belarus?

East Africa?

Central America and Mexico?


Several Moroccan states exist - why would they be under Spain?

What about Portugal?


... that's all I can think of for now.

Don't take it as insulting, its just light criticism! It does actually look nice.

Lordganon 05:11, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oh good GOD! The Celts have gone most of Britain in their claws! Plausible, but not popular for the people in Albion (Cleveland and Northumbria), England/Anglia (possible union of East Britain, Woodbridge and Essex) - and definitely not for the Scots. Depending on how the future turns out we might even have seen a war between the British states and the Celtic Alliance - hopefully one where we British don't lose(!). However, I'm inspired somewhat... who here would like to do their own version of 'Doomsday in 100 years', perhaps as a little competition? Fegaxeyl 08:57, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Hey I'm already doing it! But that might be interesting...

And Lord, thanks but can say specific nations? What Anti-NAU States? What Morrocan States? I suppose I'll try and find out myself...

And don't you think NAU would have conquered those little countries.

Eastward Expansion 13:38, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the nations in England would you unite. And there is the Scottish New State which despises the Celts. And what of France? Bob 18:39, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? We already know Cleveland and Northumbria will unite, regardless, and though Essex and Woodbridge have somewhat larger gaps I would posit a possible unification within a few decades, possibly with later absorption of East Britain and recognising the current monarch (who might well be Prince Bob himself at the time!) as theirs. You'd have a solid power base in East Anglia for that nation, and then in the future the new Essex-Woodbridge-East British nation of Anglia might marry with the Albionic rulers to form a single new united kingdom, provided political differences don't enter the mix (Essex is reasonably resentful of the Celtic Alliance's celticism, much less so in the north). This would leave only Southern England (which would plausibly gravitate towards either Anglia or the Celtic Alliance) and the Scottish New State (which if it continues on track will still be hostile to the Celts and allied to Anglia, or completely conquered). Of course, this is a plausible extrapolation of the current situation, much less what we as editors might want. Fegaxeyl 19:16, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

The NAU is a peaceful union, not some war-mongering thing.

Besides Asinaboia, Athabaska and Lincoln are both against the idea of it.

You may want to divide it up into Canada and the USA, as well, since the stated objective of the Canadian part ( as well as the Northwest Alliance, Yukon, and Victoria) is to rejoin the Canadian government in St. Johns when it becomes practical. The Eastern half of Alaska there is the Yukon.

Morocco looks fine like that.

The Gulf States Union would have the Arabian peninsula.

Belarus, like the eastern half of east Poland.

A "German Alliance" in Central Germany, and a German Republic in the Northwest.

Crimea in the southern Ukraine.

The Celts~ would have Brittany and Normandy, Andorra the central part of the Pyrenees, Luxembourg most of Lorraine and Alsace, Monaco most of Southeastern France. The remainder would be a "Kingdom of France"

Belgium would be mostly under the control of Luxembourg, with whatever being left given to France.

The Netherlands is likely to be only recently re-colonized, and I think Friesland would end up with the whole thing.

Sicily, given its nature, would eventually be cut down to Sicily itself, with the mainland being split between Greece and Italy.

By that point, India would have its territory in the South back, for sure.

Superior needs to be cut back - much of that territory would go to Canada, Dixie or New England, more likely than not.

I'd extend the South American Confederation further into Central America - if the columbians get their way, that'll happen.

Bulgaria would more than likely be independent.

Just pencil in the Caucasus as being an alliance or something, stretching up into Russia.

Louisiana will return - the slated goal of the survivors there - and would have joined the NAU, more likely than not. Same for California south of the MSP.

Based on survivor nations east of Finland, the southern area would be Nordic while the Northen parts would be Soviet - see the Karlia articles for details.

The CMAC would be the nation in east Africa.

Iran would likely have the whole area between Turkey and Pakistan.

And don't forget about Isreal and Jordan - now effectively allied - which would have the territory between Anatolia and Egypt west of Suez, more likely than not.

The Philippines are intact after DD, and control the corner of Borneo nearest them.

The rest of Borneo is controlled by Brunei.

Mainland Mayasia is intact, as is Singapore and Sri Lanka.

I'd give most of Burma to India.

Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia survived.

In northern Sumatra is Aceh.

Prussia has given up claims east of Danzig.

Victoria controls most of Southern British Columbia.

I could see West Poland (communist!!) pissing off someone to get taken out.

Luxembourg would probably join a Central-German Alliance.

Stick Croatia in that gap between Italy and Transylvania.

Give the Caribs the rest of Central America, and Mexico the remainder of modern Mexico.

Japan is a self-isolated state, and it is highly unlikely that they'd take over Korea.

And yeah, kinda hard to believe the Celtics would have that much of Britain in their claws.

Lordganon 09:54, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

This map and discussion would go well with the 2010 WCRB report on the Future Geopolitical Outlook (1983: Doomsday) article. Also I renamed the topic, you got nothing to apoligize about. Mitro 13:07, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Other than Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Slovenia would also exist, especially as both Croatia and Serbia aim to join the ADC. And if this really is a map of the world a 100 years from now, or even 50, the most likely outcome in Eastern Europe would be that the rest of the blank spaces in Russia and the Ukraine be absorbed into the Socialist Union. As for Belarus, I'm not so sure.

Thailand and the rest of the Indochinese nations are also missing, but I assume you'll add most of this in the next version of the map.--Vladivostok 15:08, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Some things,

1. Japan already has Korea (according to the 83:DD map).

2. Why wouldn't the Celts have that much territory?

3. I updated the map!

Doomsday in a Hundred Years

Eastward Expansion 15:36, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Korea is independant, the 1983DD map has an error showing Korea under Japan.

As the caretaker of the Celtic Alliance, neither I or the Celtic Alliance show no interest in any more expansion into France. We will take the rest of Cornwall, Scotland, and Wales, but leave England and France to themselves.

I plan on making a map myself pretty soon, but this one will also show the OTL borders. At the current moment I can't do so because I am typing from my iPod, but when I get my computer fixed I will make a more, accuate map. Arstarpool 16:18, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Editing EE's map I made it slightly more accurate, but still needs a lot of work.
Oerwinde 11:16, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I missed this in the discussion, but what happened to Saguenay? Is it really likely that they will not be independent in the near future? Mitro 14:49, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
I actually completely forgot about it, and with EE's map leaving it out it never crossed my mind.Oerwinde 18:36, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
After reading the article on Saguenay, I really think Canada would have annexed it. And also, the point of my map is that all those little city-states (I'm not saying Saguenay is one) would be absorbed by larger nations.
Eastward Expansion 22:03, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

It's a good goal - but it some areas of the globe just not feasible.

With regards to Canada, Sangquay~ is toast in the long run.

What you're missing with the NAU is its parts - the P. Canada would merge with Canada, as would Victoria, given the chance - which will definitely come in a hundred years. The PUSA would likely have the entire area south of the border, except the part in Victoria, as well.

The MSP would definitely be part of the PUSA as well.

And, the Central German States - and Southwest too, for that matter - would not go along with any other German states willingly - some sort of Central Germanic Alliance would be best.

Lordganon 08:22, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps by then, the NAU would become the USA, with the PUSA (Without the P) having become so powerful as to make this so. I probably should have worded that better...HAD 10:18, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you guys use the indent button, it would make these discussions easier to follow. But then, sometimes the indents are disregarded by the edit software.
Anyway, I'm with HAD. The "North American Union" would cease to be a political alliance (it is NOT a nation), and the
DD 100

America 100 years after Doomsday

USA would take the reins of the American states as they come to realize that a Balkanization of America just weakens them. There is no way that the MSP would continue. I am surprized that the scattered city-states made it this long. The USA and the alliances in the south would probably become one (south of Virginia/Kentucky) once Texas came on board. And I don't think the USA would take land from Mexico in the meantime either. My American spirit is strong enough that I hold out for at most four, but probably only three nations between Canada and Mexico. Here is what I think the American states might be a hundred years after Doomsday. The proposed names for the alternate American successor nations are tentative, of course. SouthWriter 04:48, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
This is interesting, but I don't see the Dixie Alliance joining the USA. I almost picture them as a second Confederacy who would maintain their independence. Caeruleus 05:34, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
Right you are, Caer. The Dixie Alliance is in the red area, expanding north to join with Superior which would lose its Canadian territory but reclaim the lands of the midwest Great Lakes states. The two "nations" of the DA are very much like Superior, so I see them combining. I am not sure about the northeastern states, but given the political situation in OTL, I would not be surprised if in TTL that area would see little continuity with the historical USA anyway. The south and west, on the other hand, tend to hold more closely to the USA of history. The liberalism of the far west does not foster independence so much as it does interdependece of the states on the federal government. All in all, there would be some balkanization, but these three seem to be the extent of it in the long run.SouthWriter 16:28, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Superior would unite with the Dixie Alliance. Nor do I think the rest of the Southern US east of the Mississippi would join the USA. I would imagin the Dixie Alliance expanding southward to encompass all of the US south of the Ohio and Potomac Rivers and east of the Mississippi. In the north, there would be Superior expanding southeward into Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, Toledo expanding noth towards Toronto, west to Chicago, east to Pittsburg, and south to the Dixie border. The USA would remain west of the Mississippi. The states east of the Mississippi may uite though. There has also been talk of a reunited Texas who may not join the USA. Caeruleus 21:31, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
I am one of the editors working with the deep south, and I don't see us continuing to be separated from the USA. The deep has the history needed to give the new USA its heritage back. The nations as they now exist, a quarter of a century in, are not sufficiently alienated from the old America to warrent a wholesale rejection of the idea of rejoining with the legitimate government that has just been declared. If the legal and political structure is there, I can see this happening. This is especially true if Texas rejoins the USA, adding its support to the weak states of Louisiana and Mississippi. If Texas, goes it alone, then Dixie (probably not taking that name) might very well follow its lead, perhaps even joining the largest southern state (instead of the other way around).
My optimism is anathema to Yankovich, and others tend to agree with him but not to the extreme. But since this is alternate history and not alternate future, this exercise only helps to set our goals as to where we want our particular articles to go. We can only represent the minds of each nation-state's leaders as we write our articles. This is sort of like "long range planning." If you don't know where you are going, you'll be lost wherever you are! SouthWriter 02:55, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Though, the borders of Greece must be greatly reduced in this map. Greece simply doesn't have the population, or friendly enough neighbors, to allow them to have such a large empire. Turkey, as in OTL, will become wealthier, more industrialized, and much more populous than Greece. Also, due the the mutual Greco-Turkish hatred, there would be many Greco-Turkish wars. The end result of these wars would, as the absolute minimum, be the Turkish conquest of the Turkish Straits, parts of nothern Greece, and Cyprus. After that war occured, it is highly possibly that Turkey would have expanded into eastern Bulgaria. Also, Turkey would be an ally of Macedonia due to their mutual hatred of Greece. Egypt, after developing a hatred of Greece imperialism and experiencing an upsurge of nationalism, would also probably align with Turkey against Greece and conquer most of Greece's North African territory. Sicily also has a larger population and equal, or greater, industrialization to that of Greece, so neither Sardinia, Tunisia, or southern Italy would be under Greek control. I predict, in 100 years in this timeline, Greece would be limited to southern Greece, the Aegean Islands, and Crete.

Also, Kurdistan would also probably be conquered by Turkey. If fully supported by Iran, only the northern Kurdish provinces that were part of pre-Doomsday Turkey would be conquered.

In addition, I still see a Caucusian alliance as very implausible. Azerbaijan would become an ally of Turkey. Georgia and Armenia would become allies. There would probably be at least one war between the two alliances. The Caucusus could also become a battleground for a possible Turkish-Iranian cold war. Not sure what will happen there, but it won't be divided. Traditionally though, Turkey has always been stronger than Iran. Caeruleus 02:57, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

I was bored, so here's another possible map for 100 years from now. Caeruleus 04:26, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
I think what might also happen is Sicilian expansion gets so unacceptable that the LoN, ADC, or just multiple Mediterranean states would fight a war to destroy it and force an unconditional surrender. Ownerzmcown 04:32, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
That wouldn't happen. Macedonia and Turkey would probably join forces with Sicily to destroy Greece at some point, due to their mutual hatred of Greece and the general vulrunbility of Greece. Israel would probably tag along due to their strong relations with Turkey, or at least they would stay neutral. Egypt would grow sick of Greek imperialism and wish to reconquer their territory that's controlled by Greece. So after Greece was dismantled, all those states would join forces with Sicily that would enable it to hold off the ADC. And the only other states in the LoN, and aren't in the ADC, who would militarily oppose Sicily is ANZC, who wouldn't be able to enter the Mediterrean easily if Greece lost control of the Suez Canal. Essentially, it would stalemate the Meditterranean. Turkey, Macedonia, Sicily, and Egypt would dominate the eastern Mediterranean, while ADC would dominate the western Meditterranean. Caeruleus 04:41, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
83DD-100yrs 2

Future of 1983:DD

.... Holy empire-building Batman! No way on earth that could happen, the ADC is a lot stronger than Sicily, and would crush them easily in a war that lasted longer than a couple months. Turkey wouldn't be far behind.
Lordganon 05:16, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
Not really. Remember, Sicily controls most of pre-Doomsday Italy's navy, is highly industrialized, and has a fairly large population. Greece would be crushed because their empire is overstretched and their surrounded by enemies. The ADC has other problems too, such as the wars in North America, the Nordic Alliance in Russia, and a possible North German-Prussian war. Not to mention that Spain and Portugal would still be recovering from Doomsday, be more focused on reuniting their nations than conquering Sicily, and have minimal population from which to draw up an army to fight with. Actually, when you think about it, the ADC isn't that powerful. As long as Sicily doesn't go too far and do something crazy, like invade mainland Spain, they wouldn't react that strongly, mainly because they couldn't. All the nations of ADC have their own issues, which would have priority as long as Sicily restrained itself.
However, the ADC would successfully limit northern and western Sicilian expansion. However, once Greece was defeated, the ADC would be facing a long, protracted war with Sicily and its new allies, which th
e ADC would not be very keen on engaging in. And if they won, they'd be facing an occupation of Sicily, that would involve a Sicilian insurgency, and a war sometime in the future with an alliance, led by Turkey. They would use their influence to prevent the complete annexation of Greece, but wouldn't launch an all-out invasion of Sicliy. In additon, Turkey, Macedonia, and Egypt were all industrializing fairly rapidly and if nothing else, Turkey, as in OTL, would quickly come to match, and surpass, the states of western Europe militarily.
Also, as many have recognized, Greece's size and empire is implausible, so its collapse is quite realistic. Caeruleus 05:34, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

100 years may be too much of a time to really guess. A lot of unforseen events can happen in that amount of time. Here are some predictions I have for Western Europe within the next 50 years. My apologies for any errors. Question marks refer to areas that I think are up for grabs or have no idea on. The area around Rome might be returned to the Papacy as a compromise between Sicily and Alpine.

Why would the Alpine Confederation annex almost the entirety of Croatia and all of Slovenia? They are both asking to be admitted into the LoN and the ADC and they are strong economic partners. But I do agree that if a map were to be done that the timescale should definately need to be reduced, perhaps even to only 25 years into the future, and even then it would be hard to predict everything, as perhaps new nations would get in the way.--Vladivostok 16:58, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I am of the opinion that by 2110, the CANZ will have evolved into the Federal Republic of Australia and New Zealand (FRANZ) after severing the last ties with the monarchy and replacing the old post of Governor-General with that of President. The SAC will evolve into the South American Federation. The two Polands will unite, forming the Republic of Poland, which along with Belarus, the Crimea (If excepted as plausible) and Transylvania will form the Eastern European League as a counterpart to the ADC. Sciliy will probably democratise and become a member of the ADC. The English and Scotish survivor states will unite as the Kingdom of Albion, while the French states will unite as the Kingdom of France. Spain will be a republic. The Western German states will unite as the United German Republic while Prussia will remain independent. The PUSA (USA) will replace the NAU and unite most of the American continent, with the exception of the Confederation of Dixie, the Republic of New England and the Republic of Superior. Canada will reclaim most of it's territory, but Assinoba and Victoria will remain independent. The USSR will fully democratise and become the USS, the Union of Sovereign States. I would like to show all this on a map, but I don't know how. HAD 08:16, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
I agree Victoria will remain independent. Rejoining Canada at first was a goal, but by the time thats feasible, there will be a significant American population that I don't see wanting to join Canada, while the Canadian population won't want to join the new USA. With the current setup of Germany, I can see it solidifying into Alpine, Prussian, North German, and Southern monarchist(Waldeck-Hesse and Wurttemburg, possibly uniting through conquest maybe).Oerwinde 08:38, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you in part about German although i feel the monarchies will unite with Prussia while the Republics like the Rhineland Federation will join with North GermanyVegas adict 10:40, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Middle East

Can I a segment on the future development of the geopolitics of the Middle East? Caeruleus 20:57, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Knock your socks off. Mitro 03:48, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Caeruleus 05:08, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Really, the GSU and the MLA bloc would both turn on Siberia? I always figured it would just be the latter group. It's just that in OTL I never really saw Middle Eastern countries helping Central Asian muslim states.--Vladivostok 17:44, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

It's a possibility imo. In this ATL, both Central Asia and the Middle East are populated by Muslims. Iran and Pakistan obviously don't want the Siberians on their border. Turkey doesn't want a return of Siberian power to the Caucasus or Black Sea Basin. The GSU may not work to oppose Siberian expansion since it would tie up Iran though, but I can see their possible support for Muslims in the area.
OTL, Turkey is an ally of several Central Asian states due primarily to ethnic connections. Iran has ethnic, historical, and cultural connections in the region and would prefer a strong buffer/allied state in the area to prevent a return of Russian power to the region. Saudi Arabia has influence in Pakistan, northern Afghanistan, and general influence due to their position as the de facto leaders of Islam. So there is some Middle Eastern activity there. However, the difference ATL is that the Siberians are weak (when compared with the OTL Russians) so Middle Eastern nations (primarily Iran and Pakistan) can make major territorial and political gains in the area. Caeruleus 19:45, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

The whole Middle East thing you wrote sounds like a power play for Turkey. Arstar 19:10, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

How so? I was trying to avoid that. Caeruleus 19:45, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's just that I thought the GSU and the MLA bloc could never really get along, as the MLA basicly represents what the GSU is hoping to avoid, from an ideological point of view. But I guess that, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", applies to this situation.--Vladivostok 22:24, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

That was I was generally thinking. Although, Turkey and Azerbaijan would have a greater interest in opposing Siberian expansion than the GSU would. The GSU would probably provide some support to Central Asian states in a attempt to block Siberian expansion, protect Muslim land, and provide a second front against Iran. So different motives, same result. Caeruleus 22:12, November 30, 2010 (UTC)