Talk:Great White South

Worldwide Climate
Though this is intriguing, would not the whole history of civilization be radically different if there had not been an ice age such as laid down so much ice in not only Antarctica, but also Eurasia and North America? The world would most likely have been temperate over most of the land masses for much longer, giving rise to the unhindered expansion of the human race to most points of Africa, Europe, and Asia. With no land bridges, though, the continents of Austraila and the Americas would be accessed only after the utilization of watercraft (but that also being a lot sooner).

Though not ice covered, the points furthest north and south would have been colder than most of humanity would have wanted to inhabit. It would have only been with the need for natural resources that these regions would have been in demand. With a point of departure so far back in the past, far more than a southern tundra would be seen here. SouthWriter 16:08, March 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I reworded it. —NukeVac (Talk) 16:29, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am assuming that the periodic ice ages (allowing for argument's sake the evolutionary geological model), would be similar to those that left glaciers in North and South America, Europe, Asia and Austrailia. This then would still have left NO massive ice sheet covering most of what we call Europe and North America today. I don't wish to spoil your scenario, but I am "afflicted" with ADD and tend to have a "perfectionist" view on these things. [By the way, what is called "ADD" probably is not a "disorder" but rather a strength allowing for "genius." :-) ]


 * The point is, though Antarctica would be little changed, with only nomadic indiginous peoples, the course of civilization in northern Europe might be quite different without the struggle the northern peoples (Germanic and others) had during and after the "last" ice age. Likewise, Amerinds would be more likely to be migrations along the coasts by sea-faring Asians and Africans. Perhaps some Austailian and Malasians would also make it to both Antarctica and South America (to SA via Antarctica?).


 * Meanwhile, Europe would be more than likely civilized by ancient Greece much sooner, maybe even to the conquering of Roman forces in the east. There would have been fewer "Barbarians," though, and Rome may have much larger at the time of Greek expansion. Either way, Grecian culture (assimilated in OTL by the Romans), would prevail. The Nortic peoples may never have arisen, their being more temperate weather further north. If they had, they may have been the original inhabitants of the British Isles, which would not have had a land bridge due no late Ice Age. The Nordic peoples, then, would have sailed the seas, colonizing Britain, Greenland, and the American Northeast.


 * Goodness, I've created a whole new time line! Sorry to bother you with it. I'll be following what you do with colonizing a deglaciated Antarctica. [I had a thought that might help stay closer to OTL -- move the POD to a late Ice Age astroid strike that changes the climate of the southern hemisphere only. I am not sure of the physics, just a thought.] SouthWriter 17:45, March 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Not only are you an expert on the South, you happen to be an expert on the Deep South ;3. I have ADD too, and I like the idea of an asteroid warming up the continent. But I still have some work to do with it. —NukeVac (Talk) 01:37, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Contest like thing, or whatever you would call it because I am not too sure


Greetings to anybody who is reading this. I wanted to try something different with TTL. I have made up only three nations on Antarctica, and I did that on purpose. I did this so others can make up their own nations on the continent. If you are interested, let me know and I will add it. If I add your nation, you have the liberty to expand, add, and develop the history for it.

I have made a base map so you can see how Antarctica will look in TTL. This is also so none of your nations are overlapping on mine. Hope this all works out. —NukeVac (Talk) 01:41, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all who have made contributions. I am making another rule for this "contest" to help clear things up. You need to create a subsection to this section ( === Section name === ) and describe your nation or idea in some detail. Secondly, please do not mention or create any joining history or mentioning of New Swabia, Ognia, or Bellinsgauzenia until I have their histories up. Though it hasn't been a problem as I can see, here is something I forgot to mention, please be courteous. Don't make a large nation out of what is free area, please save some for others who may want to play. Thank you all again. --NuclearVacuum 17:00, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Proposed geographical sections



 * For what it's worth, this is the way I envision the opening up of the continent in the twentieth century. The line down the center divides the earth into Eastern and Western Hemispheres. The arrows point to the three oceans next to the major continents. West Antarctica is "south" of the Atlantic, under European (NATO) influence. The center of the continent is under the Pacific, and most probably under Australian and New Zealand (ANZUS) influence. On the other side of the central glacier-covered mountains are two sections essentially under the Indian Ocean. I figure it could be "divided" by South Africa and India, the two most populated areas closest to it. SouthWriter 14:30, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * What is this? Is it geographical or political? I don't understand. --NuclearVacuum 17:04, April 7, 2010
 * (UTC)

Actually, a little of both. I was making assumptions based on proximity to the oceas and who "controls" the oceans. However, I just came upon another map at the West Antarctica wikipedia article (that's Orgnia, TTL), It shows the historical claims to the Antactica. And basically it is according to proximity or who got there first from the northern Hemisphere. By the way, the area of New Swabia is called "Queen Maud Land" in OTL, and is claimed by Norway. It has "settlements" of Germany, South Africa, Russia, and Japan along the coast. SouthWriter 18:24, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Like you said, you need to think about the whole timeline. Since the continent is habitable, more nations would fight for the continent. I don't believe that the Colonial powers (the UK, Russia, France) would do most of the claiming, while the colonies (Chile, Argentina, Australia) would get zip. Also, New Swabia is what evolved into TTL NS. --NuclearVacuum 19:46, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just read the article on New Swabia. It's scary to contemplate what  a South Atlantic Base on the tundra might have meant to the German war effort.  The more hospitable land would allowed for an airbase and then full scale attacks on South America, New Zealand and Autrailia.  Depending on how strong the Russian defenses were on their side of the continent, the south Pacific may have been one of the German fronts as well.  Of course, if they were fighting much in the southern hemisphere it might have reduced their effectiveness against Russia in the north. SouthWriter 21:01, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe the nation would have formed in the same period as OTL, and would be a pro-Nazi puppet state. Since it is such a new region, little could be done in the region, and little support could be helped by Germany with the beginning of WWII shortly after. One idea I thought about was that Argentina would take control of New Swabia after the surrender of Germany, but before the end of 1945. Juan Perón is an outspoken Hitler supporter, would allow the fascist nation to grow, while the Allies would keep them from expanding. Maybe in the 70s, movements would be made to give more democracy to the nation. --NuclearVacuum 21:08, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Dominion of Eduarda



 * How about a British country descended from a former colony. Mumby 14:41, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Berkner Island


Perhaps Berkner Island was used by the British as a prisoner colony (like Australia); and later a civilian colony was started, which eventually became this country. This would open up a non-Russian aspect of the Continent, and possibly mean a British presence in Antarctica in World War II. - Mister Sheen 18:14, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm... interesting idea. --NuclearVacuum 19:56, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but actually, when I look at a map of Antarctica, Berkner Island is closer to Chile and Argentina. Perhaps it should be an ex-colony of one of those countries, or of Spain, instead of Britain. - Mister Sheen 20:48, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter. --NuclearVacuum 21:00, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, but I actually think the idea of an Argentine- or Chilean-owned island would be quite interesting. - Mister Sheen 22:36, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Well one of the reasons I am allowing others to make up nations for this timeline is because I always make predictable decisions. So this is your nation, you may do what you wish with it. Feel free to make an article about. Have fun. --NuclearVacuum 23:26, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've started off an article: Santiago (Great White South). - Mister Sheen 19:48, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

A Scandinavian colony
I was thinking a good choice for a nation to colonize part of Antarctica would be either Denmark or Norway. I know Norway had the ability to travel this far south and currently owns Bouvet Island, Peter I Island, and Queen Maud Land in the Antarctic. But another part of me thinks Denmark would be better suited to colonizing this land given there experience with Greenland which would be very similar to Antarctica TTL. Anyways what do you think?--ShutUpNavi 16:57, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I think that's a great idea, and either Denmark or Norway would be good choices for this (though Sweden had the most powerful colonial empire in Scandinavia; that was actually before the Antarctic colonization in TTL). Both Denmark and Norway were invaded and occupied by Germany early in WWII, which would possibly complicate things with the German colony here. Also, in TTL, Santiago is the favourite destination for Norwegian-Antarctic immigrants, but I don't think any of that really matters. - Mister Sheen 17:21, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

The South Pole
Given that there are genuine countries on Antarctica in TTL, I think the South Pole would presumably have a designated neutral area around it, to prevent national borders getting too close. I think it would have to be, under international law, purely used as a research station; and a neutral place where, for example, Soviet and American scientists could work together peacefully.

It would probably have only a small population, and they would basically all live in the actual South Pole Station. Control of the area would likely belong to the Americans, like in OTL; or to the UN, as some kind of non-Country area (like all of Antarctica is in OTL). - Mister Sheen 10:39, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

New Swabia
When is someone going to get to creating an article for New Swabia?

Yankovic270 00:52, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

First off let me say that this is a unique and interesting timeline. However I have to question the plausibility of New Swabia. I doubt that the Germans would have enough time to establish this colony, or anything other than a small military base in the time mentioned here. 5 years or less is not enough time to start any kind of permanent settlement, let alone one big enough to become its own country. Further more it seems weird that a democratic country would still use fascist symbols.

I still think this page might be able to work. My suggestion is that New Swabia or a similar country is established sometime during the German Colonial Empire. This would give it more time to be established. It could also give us a longer history section, concerning what happened in the colonial era and during WWI and its aftermath. Later on it could ally itself with Germany during WWII. Anyways is anyone interested in my idea?--ShutUpNavi 02:30, April 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the idea. I am not much of a German historian, but a Russian historian. If you have any interest in working on New Swabia, you can if you want. —NuclearVacuum 19:45, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. When I get the chance I think I will take you up on that offer.--ShutUpNavi 20:16, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Rivers and lakes
Since settlements usually need to be built along some sort of fresh water I thought this map might come in handy. It shows Antarctica's sub-glacial lakes and rivers. Check it out. --ShutUpNavi 03:11, April 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Navi. From the looks of it, the pre-frozen continent had abundant rivers flowing from the mountains.  Even in TTL, with a thawed, but still very cold, continent, these rivers along the edges would flow during the long "summer" (our winter), when the sun is up most of the day.SouthWriter 14:23, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Wars
Will there be any wars on Antarctica in TTL? It seems possible (with British, Argentines, Russians and Germans on the continent) for there to be an "Antarctic Front" to World War I (Britain & Russia vs. Germany), World War II (same as WWI), the Cold War (Britain vs. Russia), and/or the Falklands War (Britain vs. Argentina). I don't know what anyone else thinks, but I think having one or two wars on the Continent would be an interesting thing to try. - Mister Sheen 13:39, April 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against it what so ever. I am not much of a war creator, so what ever ideas you have in mind, put them on the table. --NuclearVacuum 19:23, April 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright then, based on the wars I suggested above: We can strike off WWI - given that New Swabia is only founded in 1939, there is no Central Power presence (unless Santiago or Ognia happen to join the Centrals); WWII seems much more likely - there are German, British and Russian bases, as well as a nearby Pacific Theatre. I think a small Antarctic Theatre of WWII is quite a good idea.


 * It seems almost impossible for the Cold War not to happen, in some form: there are HUGE Soviet (Bellinsgauzenia) and Capitalist (Eduarda) areas; and since Santiago will probably be a haven for Argentinian leftists, fleeing from Videla's "Dirty War", Santiago will likely be labeled a 'Communist' country, which would push them into an alliance with the USSR. I don't know who New Swabia will side with; but Ognia seems like it would be a pro-Capitalist country, given their bad history with the Russians.


 * As for the Falklands War, I actually don't think that would affect Santiago-Eduarda relations; and wouldn't become an issue in Antarctica. But perhaps more wars between Ognia and the other countries could happen. Anyway, I think some kind of Cold War-era conflict would be the largest, most likely, and most interesting conflict. - Mister Sheen 22:20, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

I really doubt that there would be a meaningful "front" in Antarctica during WWII. The settting is too remote, and sending forces or supplies would be detrimental to both sides. This is because there is no strategic sense sending troops and guns to a far-away colongy when there are legions of enemies next door.

Yankovic270 00:25, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * My thinking behind the Antarctica in WWII business was that it would be like a small-scale version of the East African Campaign (EAC): fighting would be done between colonies, using the resources they already had available. In the EAC, there were only about 10,000 Casualties, and the war lasted only until 1941 - likewise, I think that an Antarctica Campaign would have minor casualties, and wouldn't last particularly long (especially since New Swabia is going to declare itself independent and neutral, part-way through the war). But I think that there would certainly be one (however minor), given that Eduarda (British) and New Swabia (German) actually share a border. - Mister Sheen 10:01, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, I've started off a World War I article: . You might want to fix it up/expand it, as I don't particularly know how Bellinsgauzenia or Eduarda will act. - Mister Sheen 17:40, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Contest ending and new direction
Hello all. I am so happy that there are so many interested in this timeline. Out of all the timelines I have started, this one is the most active.

Well anyway, I wanted to announce that I am ending the "create your own country" contest, as it has somewhat died down. I will add a "Scandinavian country" and a Neutral South Pole. The rest of Antarctica I think I will make the rest of the nations myself, but leave them completely open for others to adopt and work on as their own. But if there are any ideas that haven't been posted, yet... tick-tock tick-tock.

As for the new direction I have in mind, well... I am going to be opening this timeline to all those who want a piece. Meaning, I want this timeline to be much more active than it is now, and me just working on it by myself is no fun. So as of right now, this timeline is open for all ideas and opinions. Feel free to write, I know I will love it.

I also want to give KingSweden for his original idea on the. --NuclearVacuum 00:58, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it's no surprise that this TL is so active, it's one of the best I've seen! Just wondering, though, is Antarctica going to be mostly colonial or independent? French and South American colonies seem likely; as well as Australian and New Zealand areas (though Bellinsgauzenia seems to have occupied the areas which Australia would likely colonize). Perhaps a joint Aus-NZ region on the coastline between Bellinsgauzenia and Ognia; and a French area between Eduarda and Bellinsgauzenia (based on the French control of Kerguelen, etc.); with the South Americans taking the regions around Santiago. That would leave the space between Ognia and the South Pole open for someone else; as well as the space between Eduarda and the South Pole.


 * ...But I'm rambling now. I doubt whether any of this makes sense, based on my current state of sleep-deprivation; and I'll try to be more understandable later. - Mister Sheen 21:45, April 23, 2010 (UTC)