Talk:Wasteland Europe

This seems interesting. Is the Soviet Union still a force present - because it's likely that without a tough Western Europe and the allegiances it owed to the US through the Marshall Plan the reds would have rolled across the continent in no time at all. Fegaxeyl 15:17, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I had it in mind that the Soviet Union would expand throughout the 50's and 60's, with all of its' "satelite states" in OTL would just be part of the USSR, but collapse due to budgets and debt. Remember to that this is an open timeline, so you can write whatever you want. Arstarpool 15:20, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this is a worthy addtion to the wiki. As the 10,000th article, it can become a portal to a whole new cooperative project. The "cold war" as such becomes no more than "bragging rights" as democracy thrives in the Americas and communism rules much of Europe. Perhaps, for balance, the efforts of reconstruction instead lead to a greater US presense in the Pacific (Japan and the Phillipines, specifically). Or perhaps, as you state, the US becomes totally self-absorbed, building up our own defenses to never again be subject to invasion of our territories (which, of course, would mean a stronger Pacific presense as well). SouthWriter 16:50, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * The 10,000th article, eh? I intend for this to be an open timeline, similar to 1983: Doomsday, but at the same time a TL that won't make you have to look up every damn military base that may have been nuked like in 1983DD. As for the nations, the only nation I am building upon is the Irish Republic (Wasteland Europe). As for even the US, thats for the rest of you to create. The "communist Europe" may be interesting too :-)Arstarpool 16:56, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I read about it being the 10,000th article in your user:talk page, or something. I was responding to it when I posted anyway, Oh well, even so it be a great idea for a group effort. I'll take on the USA, though I am not sure what you have in mind by "purchasing" parts of Canada. I think a better use of the money is building up the western/far-eastern perimeter. This will mean making the USA and the rest of the America's less vulnerable from across the Pacific. For though the Atlantic is smaller, and the historical loyalties stronger, America wasn't actually "invaded" from the east. (However, I will not be abandoning 1983DD.) SouthWriter 18:20, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I read about it being the 10,000th article in your user:talk page, or something. I was responding to it when I posted anyway, Oh well, even so it be a great idea for a group effort. I'll take on the USA, though I am not sure what you have in mind by "purchasing" parts of Canada. I think a better use of the money is building up the western/far-eastern perimeter. This will mean making the USA and the rest of the America's less vulnerable from across the Pacific. For though the Atlantic is smaller, and the historical loyalties stronger, America wasn't actually "invaded" from the east. (However, I will not be abandoning 1983DD.) SouthWriter 18:20, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

In the article it says that Portugal and Ireland were the last stable nations in Western Europe. So what happened to Switzerland?Oregonman 17:21, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I read it wrong. I thought it said they were the only stable countries in Western Europe. Oregonman 17:27, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Does this mean there was no Truman Doctrine? I understand that the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine were fairly closely tied. Fegaxeyl 18:05, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Nope, the Marshall Plan was created in this TL, but rejected since America decided to pay off some WWII bills.


 * Yeah... but my question was does the Truman Doctrine exist? By the way, I'm thinking of making an article for London, and later the UK (or its successors) as a whole. Fegaxeyl 18:51, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like the UK is "fair game." I was going to work on it as well. However, I will be busy with the USA. On the Truman Doctrine, that was a military, not financial, decision. Though not sending troops, Truman helped strengthen the "doorway" to the middle east (especially Israel) and Africa. The Soviet Union would have to enter south Asia through Kazakhastan. Europe, meantime, would remain "open game" for the USSR.SouthWriter 19:03, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder what this would mean for Israel a.k.a. Palestine. I'm not going to fill in any more nations for the time being. I'm just going to observe the nations, so anyone who has plans for the area, go ahead, make them. Arstarpool 19:32, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Colonies
What would this event mean for French North Africa, India, Palestine, Trans-Jordan, Canada, the Guyanes etc? Arstarpool 19:32, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Things wouldn't go to pot straight away. I imagine that Britain may have continued its policy of encouraging immigration from elsewhere in the Empire, until overpopulation in the country started to grow and the Empire and the UK started to disintegrate. I also imagine that pan-Arabism, with less French and British contention, may have grown more popular. Fegaxeyl 19:42, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Although this isn't the official idea, I had imagined that the UK MAY eventually separate. If that were to happen, England would take over the UK's duties, just like in OTL when Russia took over the Soviets duties. After all, isn't the UK technically a puppet state of England? Again, this is only an idea. But bear in mind that Northern Ireland and the Isle of Mann have already broken off. Arstarpool 19:45, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * That was what I was thinking, though if things are falling apart in Europe then England, Scotland and Wales may decide it's a better idea to stick together. Of course political and nationalistic tendencies in this period could create conflict and lead to a partition, with periods of tension and amicability rising and falling over the decades. My image for London was to render the majority of it - particularly a distended East End - a vast series of slums and poorly-planned social regeneration projects which still depend on industry and the dockyards as the core of the economy. However, it would be slightly difficult to create the article without solid knowledge of the background of the UK. Fegaxeyl 20:05, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the term "United Kingdom" describes England and its "puppet states," as it were. England and Scotland "became one" when King James I (Steward - aka King James VI of Scotland) became king. The Steward dynasty lasted for a little over a hundred years, during which the nations of England and Scotland were declared one by an act of parliament. Since the capital of the "United Kingdom" is in England, that nation (or state) is the de facto ruling partner of the kingdom. For part of its history, however, the realm included all of Ireland, and France for that matter! --SouthWriter 21:09, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wales and England would definitely stick together totally (Having been united for at least 600 years) and Scotland would probably remain part of the UK but with more autonomy. With regards to the colonies; Gibraltar would probably be given to Spain in exchange for money, Hong Kong would be controlled by China; Singapore, India and the African colonies would have gained independence, but the Falklands and the Caribbean colonies would probably be part of the UK still. Apart from this, the Royal Family may have moved to Canada or Australia and one of those two would probably inherit control of the Commonwealth.Vegas adict 20:16, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the fray, Vegas. I have to disagree a little with your analysis, but then, I'm turning the UK over to Fegaxeyl if he wants it. I am only trying to mediate some plausibility here. I think that the Caribbean colonies, being in American territory, would most likely become independent as well. The Falklands, on the other hand, would be lost to Argentina when the weakened UK could not defend them. The royal family would not abandon London and England for a commonwealth nation that had already become autonomous in the course of things any way. It is doubtful if either Canada or Australia would abandon the "mother land," but the queen may indeed abandon the member nations to hold the UK together. --SouthWriter 21:09, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why they would emigrate to other parts of the Commonwealth, and ultimately the core of the organization - Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK would probably stick together. So are we agreeing to the UK growing extremely distant, with Scotland being a part of the country only in name? Oh, and I was also thinking about the oil in the North Sea. This could lead to Britain regaining at least some economic strength, but pressure with other nearby countries could lead to some sort of gunboat diplomacy or war. I suppose that Britain might even have a very limited stockpile of nukes to threaten the others with. Fegaxeyl 20:23, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about nukes; remember that there will be DRASTIC changes in this TL. Atomic weaponry would probably stick around for a while, and with no Cold War, it would probably stay that way.

Here is my idea, although I would like to hear what you guys say:



I like it, but Scotland is smaller OTL. You see that westward-facing spit of land north of the border you put? Scotland and England have a roughly northeasterly-facing border from there. Fegaxeyl 21:04, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know. I did it in a hurry. Sorry it came out kinda sloppy, but, what should we do for the UK, then? Arstarpool 22:51, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Asia
What would happen to Japan? Do you guys think it should receive anything? How about the Chinese Civil War? Arstarpool 23:23, June 30, 2010 (UTC)