User talk:Mumby

Ogres not humans
Your "Ogres not humans" timeline has been nominated for deletion because it hardly contains any actual content, if you are still interested in writing this AltHist you are given four weeks time to let us know and to start writing on, otherwise it will be deleted.--Max Sinister 02:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Britain
Do you want me to delete the page Neo-Britain, since you deleted all the content already?--Max Sinister 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your timelines
Do they belong together? Edward VII, Britannic Empire and the united kingdoms? If yes, you should give them better titles, in the form of "name of page (name of TL)". Like most of the other pages on this site, you know. TIA.--Max Sinister 12:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Two Suns
Your "The Two Suns" timeline has been nominated for deletion because it hardly contains any actual content, if you are still interested in writing this AltHist you are given four weeks time to let us know and to start writing on, otherwise it will be deleted.--Max Sinister 15:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Doomsday
A warm and very belated welcome to the group! Please don't delete other people's work without discussing it first, as you seem to have done with the Falklands. I'm glad, though, that you seem to be working on harmonizing the Rhodesia and Celtic Alliance material. Benkarnell 19:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's another very cool flag. Both that and the sideways-Y.  But does Rhodesia actually cover the territory of the OFS?  It seemed to be centered in the Natal region, but I could be wrong.  Looking around, Natal never had a flag of its own, but in the early 20th century apparently had a badge or coat of arms featuring two running wildebeest.


 * On a related note. There's very little written so far about the people already living in the Rhodesia region.  The nation's Afrikaaner ruling class must surely be upset about a bunch of Brits transplanting themselves and declaring a new country. I suppose that's the war with Cape Town mentioned, but what about those living in Rhodesia?


 * More importantly, what about hte millions and millions of "Coloureds" and Blacks in the region? The conflict between Rhodesia and Cape Town suggests that the British may have repealed apartheid.  But there is nothing about any Black or Coloured leaders of this undoubtedly White, British nation.  Has apartheid been kept to some extent?  Have the nonwhites been politely asked to go now?  I'm not opposed to a state that is "evil" by any means, if that's what you're going for - it's highly likely, as a matter of fact, in a post-Doomsday scenario.  But I'd like to know the details.  Benkarnell 19:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, never mind - I had never noticed your updates to the South Africa article. So the story goes: under the stress of Doomsday, apartheid actually fell apart.  Good thing!  Benkarnell 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting: your flag was apparently suggested back in 1927. Maybe the Rhodesians dug the idea up and used it?

Continuity
While reading the timeline, I found peviously written events that do in fact conflict with what you've written
 * 1985: Sub-Saharan Africa is worse. The loss of American, European and Soviet aid has plunged most of the African nations into chaos and starvation. The economy of the Union of South Africa collapses, even under martial law, rioting runs rampant as it becomes apparent that the white minority is shunting food and fuel rations to primarily whites, while black South Africans starve. When guards abandon the Robben Island prison, members of the ANC rescue (August 17th) Nelson Mandela, but the joy is short-lived as Mandela dies in a bombing raid by the South African Air Force on a Pretorian black neighbourhood.
 * 1985: Sub-Saharan Africa is worse. The loss of American, European and Soviet aid has plunged most of the African nations into chaos and starvation. The economy of the Union of South Africa collapses, even under martial law, rioting runs rampant as it becomes apparent that the white minority is shunting food and fuel rations to primarily whites, while black South Africans starve. When guards abandon the Robben Island prison, members of the ANC rescue (August 17th) Nelson Mandela, but the joy is short-lived as Mandela dies in a bombing raid by the South African Air Force on a Pretorian black neighbourhood.


 * 2006: A RZA Provisional Government is set up but is merely able to secure a small region around Capetown with the support of a small joint SAC-ANZ Garrison - the first multilateral peacekeeping mission since doomsday. Everything north of the city is de facto lawless warlord-ruled territory.

To harmonize the two versions: maybe the multi-ethnic South Africa is smaller than you had in mind, and centered maybe on Joburg. The European rescue missions could still have happened, but then fell apart in 1985. Botha's new Joburg-centered union could come into being a tad later, say 1987-88, and Rhodesia could then decline an invitation to join. All this time, the Cape Province region remained a lawless wasteland, and the SAC/ANZ could still send a mission to Cape Town in 2006. That would mean that Rhodesia attacked the Transvaal region, plus Botswana and Mozambique, which could make sense. Cape Town would still be under the Provisional Government. Benkarnell 03:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made some suggestions at Talk:1983: Doomsday. XiReney's said that a few details will have to change.  Check it out if you haven't yet.  Benkarnell 04:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please take a look at my latest post at Talk:1983: Doomsday? Benkarnell 19:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Britannia
I like the idea of moving everything back a few years. But I don't think any sort of rescue from the UK to Africa is even remotely plausible. The Africans would be concerned about survival. Why would they spend some of their last resorces to rescue people from Britain? And why only Britain? Benkarnell

The British have a quite a significant chunk of cash to offer, being a First World country. Other countries in Africa seem to have transported large quantities of the populace of the nations who originally dominated them. Besides the Africans might not have spent any money. They might tell Britain. You can come but you have to pay. The RAF transports the vast majority of the populace of our green and pleasant land to the virgin lands of Africa. If you are still adamant about this where do you suggest the British are moved to. Or are they not moved at all. Either way there will be quite a lot of stuff to delete and I don't know how. Bob 14:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If I'm adamant, that's really not an issue, since this is a group project. I can live with something that doesn't make total sense to me, as long as there's consensus to keep it.  There are a number of reasons why I think it's totally unrealistic:


 * No resources to do it - Britain doesn't have as much cash or military equipment as you think, since most of the people are dead and the institutions destroyed
 * Very little incentive to do it - The only possible reason for such an undertaking would be Anglo-South Africans who feel pangs of loyalty to the mother country. But the British were/are a minority in S. Africa, and even during the apartheid government, the lion's share of political power was held by Afrikaaner nationalists who probably couldn't give a damn about evacuating an island thousands of miles away.
 * No communication - how would the British survivors have contacted the South Africans about such a project, given the total breakdown of global communications? Why would they think to contact SOuth Africa in the first place?  This is the 80s - there were major political movements throughout the West dedicated solely to hating the South African government and apartheid.  If British people are going to flee anywhere, it will be to Ireland, and it will not be in the kinds of numbers you're talking about.
 * No precedent - the TL does not have examples of large populations fleeing to Africa. If you're thinking of Spain and Portugal, those are small governments-in-exile claiming to be the successors of the bombed-out countries.  No massive population transfers.  The UK already has such a gov-in-exile - in Ireland.
 * Look, I'm really sorry that you've put som uch work into this, but others and I have been saying these kinds of things for months, and gotten very little direct response fomr you, and very little willingness to be flexible. Benkarnell 14:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * [EDIT] OK, that was a bit harsh. Here's what I probably meant to say.  The kernel of your idea is probably plausible: a band of British people that sets out for South Africa and establishes a new state there.  It's just that all your ideas have been implausibly "big" so far.  Such a group would have to be small.  They could have a compelling story of how they travelled thousands of miles down the African coast, bravely battling the elements and brigands, only to arrive at this new shore to found a new nation based on the ideals of their homeland.  That's not bad!  But it would be a small undertaking, certainly - a few thousand people on Navy ships and fishing boats, that's all I could see happening.  And they'd have to do it on their own, since neither of the relevat governments would be willing or able to sponsor such a project. Benkarnell

Survivor Kingdom of Great Britain
I've had a new idea. In case of a nuclear war, Britain had a plan to build a National Network of tunnels connecting the cities and large towns of Britain. It gives a kind of adventurer or World War Two mentality. The stoic rmnants of humanity in Britain holding out underground, growing food by special lights, playiong cricket in vast underground cities. Its much more interesting than the whole Africa thing. They wouldn't disturb the Celtic Alliance or the Kingdom of Cleveland either. They would exist underneath the Celtic Alliance and Yorkshire didn't pose much of a military threat to the Russians so they didn't target it. Bob 14:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an idea. It's a cool one, actually.  Now, if you don't want to totally delete everything, some of it can still be adapted.  I liked the idea of Rhodesia as an evil white kingdom - sans the British refugee element.  Benkarnell 01:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That would make for some really interesting books of nonfiction and realistic fiction. Who knows, maybe the idea of a fictionalized version of an underground Britain could fill the void of something like the Harry Potter series (no doubt JK Rowling is either a pile ash) Mr.Xeight 03:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

New Britain collaboration
Bob, I appreciate you contacting me like this. I know we have had our disagreements in the past and that at times I could have been very rude, however, I hope you understand it was nothing personal. In such an atmosphere where people have their creative juices flowing the tempers can easily get out of control.

That being said I have always been supportive of an English successor state in South Africa, though I have disagreed about its scope. Though there is a significant minority of members who don’t think the article is plausible, I think it probably would not be difficult to graduate it to canon. I’d be glad to help, but due to summer school finals I’m going to be limited in the amount of work I can put in, at least until after August 3rd.

If you don’t mind I have some ideas for the British Survivors Administration (1983: Doomsday) article that I would like to start on first. Is that alright? Mitro 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats perfectly fine. I also understand why you can get a bit incensed with me. I can be full of zeal for my nation. However there is an interesting program about penicilluin on the tellybox right now. Good old BBC! Bob 20:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done work on the British Survivors Administration (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 15:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The BSA page is brilliant!! This bodes well for anything else we do together! Bob 18:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we first need to start from the beginning. We can list what was hit, how did the government reorganize itself, what did they do at first to ensure survival, what was Prince Andrew doing during this time, etc.  The whole migration is what most dissenters have a problem with. If we can show in good detail how it could have been possible then they may be more accepting of the article.  Also we need to work in links and content for the BSA and the Antarctic territories.  Not a lot but right now they are orphans.  Mitro 18:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)