aIt is not necessary for this organization to be founded at such a late date. In fact, if it is of recent establishment, there would be few member states who were ignorant of the League of Nations. Look into the possibility of this oganizaton having been founded earlier - even before the League was formed in the far away south Pacific. It makes sense for these struggling survivor nations to put together something of their own way before the League organized expeditions to come and "save" them in their misery. SouthWriter 18:12, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. The main reason I made the establishment date so late was to avoid conflicting with canon. Does 2007 sound fine? The organization comes into existence shortly before the League, but not excessively so. JackofSpades 18:29, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Seems good. Most of the "nations" in North America (especially in the NE) were well developed by then. SouthWriter 20:21, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
Given how the membership of this organization looks, wouldn't it make more sense to call it something more like "United Communities of the Great Lakes," and hope for more membership later? It just sounds to me to be a bit overblown, really.
Also, I'd wait until doing more - the Superior-Canada war, as well as the issues around Ontario in the first place, should be solved first, because with how it looks so far, the result of either could screw this up quite badly.
Mind you, I do like the overall concept.
Lordganon 12:23, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
- Judging from the relative isolationism of the founding members, your point is well made. However, the concept is good and need not be localized as you would have it. I tend to think that the isolationism that these articles assume would not have been so severe. After a decade, if not less, any survivor community of any size would have restored rudimentary radio capabilities. And assuming total loss of technology, the central location of Toledo and Erie assures that they would have been discovered by the relatively advanced nations of the Dixie Alliance and Superior, if not by Vermont and Aroostook as well. By 2000, at the very least, a general knowledge of the proliferation of survivor states would be widespread.
- It should be expected that by 1995 or so groups desiring peace among these states would be organized and seek a way of "keeping the peace" internationally. Just like the continuing hostilities around the world today have not caused the United Nations to cease functioning, neither should the minor border disputes in Canada keep this organization from forming. That they would build a building at Niagra Falls is, in itself, a way to build a sense of community. I assume this is in Niagra Falls, NY, rather than in Niagra Falls, ON, since most of the member "nations" are on the "American" side of the border.SouthWriter 14:22, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm well aware of all that - its just that this seems a lot more like a Great Lakes thing than anything else, and it would make more sense, to me at least, for it to be a Great Lakes Association, that has the eventual goal of expanding.
Just sounds like it is having a disillusion of grandeur, really.
Lordganon 14:49, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
- I like the term "disillusion of grandeur"! I wish I had thought of that. I suppose, though, that what is passing as "nations" in 1983DD America are in reality just "communities" any way. Most have a population of less than a million, and many with far less, but they are headed by "presidents" instead of governors because of their illusion of self-sufficiency.
- That being said, I think that the name of the organization - United Communities - is a lot more realistic than most efforts in America have been. I believe that America -- and Canada -- would not Balkinize as many of the editors of this TL assume, but would rather seek the cohesion that their former nations provided. An interdependence between the states and provinces had built up over the course of 200 years (for the US) and 100 years (for Canada). But my opinion does not change the overall character of the TL. Certain editors have created "nations" that are vehemently "independent" of their brothers and cousins who survived the great disaster of DD. Indeed, "United Communities" should be pushed as an alternative to the authoritative "League of Nations" which is far too overstretched in its outreach. SouthWriter 15:44, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
United Communities[]
I could imagine this existing in post doomsday North America but it would have to be on a regional scale to avoid conflict with the League of Nations which is already a canon article--Owen1983 13:51, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Owen, are you posting just to get points? This discussion is two months old, and if you read it you can see that it was decided that the regional organization would have been founded before any knowledge of the late-in-coming League of Nations was known. When and if the nations around the lakes apply for membership to the larger organization, the United Communities can and should still exist. It is like the earlier attempt in Superior - seeking co-operation among Americans. SouthWriter 16:18, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Owen, did you read this at all?
- Also, The United Communities is a more "directly ruled" by the people organization. They won't turn Thunder Bay down just because they are communist. They can't turn down any orgnanized city-state, nation-state, etc for any reason except if it represents a threat to the people. Rather than the League of Nations which is ruled by a bunch of moronic bureaucrats from Australia and South America, and they decide whats best for every country in the world, the UC actually takes votes and lets the people decide on matters like toppling raider regimes, etc. Remember that this article is about American and Canadian survivor states, not just Americans, so it has little to do with the earlier attempt in Superior. Arstar [talk] 22:21, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, United Communities only differs from the idea at Superior in that it is inclusive of some Canadian states - one of which you attempted to annex. The line between "America" and Canada has been smudged since DD anyway, and the confusion in world circles over the "North American Union" and the United States is probably quite common among the "moronic bureaucrats" (as you so gently call them) <grin>. With its local flavor of the UC will probably never reach outside of North America - if even out of the Northeast (I notice that you've removed Superior from the list of nations).
- It is probably a bad idea to remove Superior. Think about it, Superior early on established itself as a power to be reckoned with. And now it is removed from the clubhouse? Is it because you are afraid they will "take over" the organization? Think about it. The bylaws of the UC ought to keep any larger city-state or nation-state from dominating. You have tiny city-states (counties at best) with two multi-county nation-states vying for leadership. The members all all minor players within the time line that have only just been developed - some only blips on the discussion pages after it was decided that "large nations" are no longer possible. Superior is stable. It is mentioned as being a world player by some. SouthWriter 01:12, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what to believe! [original comment removed] put Superior on the review list because they feel that Supeior couldnt control so much of Ontario. They are putting Superior up for review so that London, Midland, and even my own Norfolk can remain canon! QSS and QAA Violation right there buddy! Hypocrisy at its finest! However I have provided a logical solution that wouldn't require as much working around to bend over culo al cara for these Canadian County-States. Here it is below, what I will write into the Superior article:
When Toronto was hit, the southern Ontario counties would attempt to form a new government in London since it was far away from most of the blasts. Eventually it was decided to consolidate power around the London-Norfolk-Kitchener area and eventually most of the people from the "northern south" migrated in order to be closer to organization. While around 20-50% of the population might remain, the conditions would be favorable for any scumbag(s) to seize power creating much of the chaos that exists in the Superior article. Superior steps in and manages to clear out a lot of the raiders and bad guys, and successfully aids a new government at Midland, which appears to be the most stable to the Superiorans.
About the restrictions, yes I think that the United Communities will not judge by a nations size or such but no matter what if Superior is a member than it will be the "US" of this "UN". It has the most land, largest economy, largest everything pretty much. Also, if things go lucky for the UC I hope to "beat" the League of Nations to having the smaller states along the US-Canada, or even your own Provisional Dakota join the United Communities by 2015. I wish for this indeed to be a "friendly rival" with the League of Nations, with no tension, but I will keep my own member states out of the League of Nations. Like I stated above, The League of Nations is essentially all about spreading control of the two power blocs, while the United Communities is about helping the common folk work together to aid and assist anyone, even the fascist state of Thunder Bay. Arstar [talk] 03:22, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
Why on earth are you being so insulting Arstar? I don't care if you say "no offense" - it is still VERY offensive and should not have been said.
Superior was added to the review list because of the long-discussed adjustments in southern Ontario to the population there, which would logically mean survivor communities and a lack of expansion on the same level by Superior.
You cannot just add that to the article - it is not something that you can add yourself, though you fail to recognize that.
Lordganon 03:39, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know that word was so offensive. I spoke with a Canadian friend of mine a while back asking whether or not that word was offensive or not and he says it varies to person, but personally he said it wasn't bad for him. But I guess to some people it's offensive, so I will not say it again. Arstar [talk] 05:08, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
By the way I actually can edit the article as I please; I'm the caretaker of Superior, which doesn't necessarily give me supreme rule over the article, but in a case like this I think I can make drastic changes. Arstar [talk] 05:11, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
- Whoa, Alex. First you're throwing the "hypocrisy" label around again. Reconsidering the Superior article is not so much hypocrisy as teamwork. Superior was written as one of the earliest American states to survive. The principle of QAA would require that some of the best articles be canned. The truth is, the original assumptions were wrong. The earlier articles took too much for granted with not enough detailed research. Superior got a lot of discussion - and was toned down quite a bit from earlier estimates of population and strength. But the destruction of Ontario was overblown, two or three major hits did not destroy all of the southern part of the province. Large populations were lost, of course, in those cities, but minor cities abound, and thus the new articles.
- And what's this "my" nation and "your" nation? This is a group effort, and any organization created to have membership of sovereign states should not be restricted to nations created or controlled by the creator of such an organization. We are trying not to have this be a "game," Alex. If the UC succeeds it will probably be like OTL's "Organization of American States, separate from the LoN, but not barring its member states from entering that larger body.
- The LoN, much like the UN of OTL, has little power of its own. The LoN, in fact, is much weaker than the UN has ever been. And since it is only a few years old, the LoN is hardly in any place to force its hand. Of its member states, the UAR is probably the strongest. The ANZC is not near as populous and it had many nuclear strikes on its territory. The rest of the SAC nations would follow the UAR in strength, leaving the ANZC and the USSR far back in the pack of world powers. The tiny nations of the former USA that are members, or observers, in the LoN, are serving a good purpose in letting the wealthy and stable governments of the world know about their needs. It does such nations no good to spurn the LoN. SouthWriter 04:01, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
The LoN has had an unfair head-start I must say :) Arstar [talk] 05:09, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
Considering the article is under review I would say that you cannot make drastic changes like that on you own. You seem to forget that despite the individual "ownership" of articles, it is a community project.
If you were told it varies from person to person, THEN WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU SAY IT?!?!?!!?!?
Seriously.
Lordganon 05:18, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
Website?[]
They have their own website? How is that possible?--Vladivostok 20:46, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, the only thing that comes close to the internet is in South America. I removed the line. Mitro 21:37, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Science & Technology talk page.
Greenland[]
Greenland? That seems a little unrealistic, especially since they are part of the Nordic Union. Mitro 17:04, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
This is something that the UC has considered, not Greenland, and although it is part of the NU it is an independent country, also it's part of North America and they have relatively good relations with a couple member states. Arstar 17:20, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
- No it is still unrealistic. Greenland historically is not active in North American politics. Furthermore, I don't see how they would have "good" relations with so many member states. The interior survivor states would have no incentive to build relations with Greenland. Neither side has anything to offer the other. Mitro 16:32, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
Keene[]
Now that Keene is "settling in" and getting along better with its neighbors, I'm sure it would want to join the UC. Keenans (?) would see that as an important part of being recognized as a "real country," though they would not want the UC to have much power. Benkarnell 18:47, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and added it under Future Expansion. Should be a member by June. Arstar 04:55, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
Regional Currency[]
I have been thinking about this for some time, that the different states that make up the UC all use different currencies. I have been thinking of introducing a new currency recognized by all of the smaller member states, as I would understand why larger ones like Vermont and Canada would not want to. The states I am specifically thinking of are North Penn, State College, Norfolk, and the New York Republic. Thoughts? Arstar talk 01:47, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't make much sense. At all. Lordganon (talk) 06:55, September 1, 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but how does it not make any sense? I understand almost all my suggestions are non-sensical in your opinion but could you be more specific? Arstar talk 14:01, September 1, 2012 (UTC)
And here I was hoping that you'd look at the articles. Guess not. Par for the course, since you rarely do.
Not only is that introducing something to articles that you would have no permission to do, but overall it makes little sense.
Why would North Penn and State College agree to hold the same currency? They can't even agree on reunification, something they both want. Agreement on the same currency makes even less sense.
Norfolk doing that makes the least sense. Aside from moves from Toledo and North Penn in the early 1990s in restoring order to the area - something which barely makes sense in itself - they aren't near your other listed states, are going to economically linked with other states in former Ontario, not those across the lake, and have wholly different goals in general.
The New York Republic is brand-new, and geographically separated from the rest. Add different goals to that.
And, overall? You're trying to make a regional political organization out to be far more than it is.
Lordganon (talk) 02:49, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
Commonwealth of Susquehanna, State College, Reading, and Gettysburg[]
Would these nations be in the UC? If so, can I add them? Also, would they be members, or observers like Canada? Also then, would the nation's ambassador serve the entire UC? Daeseunglim (talk)
State College already is, Gettysburg may not be interested.
Observers first, then members.
Reading not yours, so not up to you. The CoS, w/e you want.
Canada is a special case. Never going to be a member. Was forced into the current arrangement.
Current situation would have them all operate through the SC ambassador. Would remain that way. Lots of countries operate this way otl - for example, the UK, Canada, Aussies, and NZ do this for each other's citizens in foreign countries if there is no local representative of their own country's diplomatic service. UC probably does the same thing.
Lordganon (talk) 15:28, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
Language[]
Just curious, with there being three relatively large metropolises part of the UC (Toledo, St Catherine's/Niagara Falls, London), and a number of smaller ones (Manchester, Sault Ste, Meadville, State College, Hazleton, etc.) wouldn't there be a relatively large number of Spanish speakers as well?
If so, would that justify adding Spanish as a language?
No, there would not be. Not only are these areas where otl there is few, we're talking about an area that did not get the otl immigration. There's almost none here. Lordganon (talk) 11:34, May 24, 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I just wasn't sure how much there was prior to Doomsday. Thanks. Daeseunglim (talk)
Why was French added as a language? Daeseunglim (talk)
Id say due to the French speaking populations in the Ontario states, Vermont, Niagara, as well as the majority French nation of Saguenay. At the end of the day regardless of the number of languages, I'd say the meetings themselves and all official functions go on with English as the primary language, with statements and documents released by the UC being avaliable in these languages. Arstar talk 00:34, August 25, 2015 (UTC)
Map[]
May I add a map of member states to the page? I will make the map, but will not post it until I get a definite answer as I do not want to get in trouble. Daeseunglim (talk)
I'd say go for it, as long as it's accurate we'd all appreciate it. Arstar talk 06:32, August 18, 2015 (UTC)
I am using two separate political maps with county divisions on it, one for the USA and one for Canada. This allows me to literally get it down to the county with accuracy. There are only a few discrepancies between the maps on the pages that I am unsure about. I will post the maps today if possible though, and anyone may offer me potential corrections. As I stated there are a few points I am unsure on.
If you need any help with any of the countries I contributed to writing (check my user page for the list) then I would be more than happy to help with specifics. Arstar talk 04:22, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
The maps are up. Daeseunglim (talk)