Talk:Wasteland Europe

Proposal Archives:1 Discusion Archives:1

Useful Criteria
Donated by KarstenVK, this report deals with the benefits of the Marhsall plan. you can read it here.

Discussion
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' "satellite 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 addition 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 presence in the Pacific (Japan and the Philippines, 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 presence 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, that's 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)

I'm happy at how fast this TL has grown :) Arstarpool 03:24, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

On the page I have written for the UK I detailed how the National Government encouraged immigration to the industrial areas of Scotland, resulting in a slow collapse of regional nationalism. I also thought of placing a new capitol on the border between Scotland and England while London is being reconstructed. Bob 09:00, July 2, 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)


 * If the US does step up its presence in the Pacific then Japan could occupied by the US or perhaps a satellite. For the Chinese Civil War I have no idea. Oregonman 23:54, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I'm pushing for Philippines to be a Commonwealth in the Present Day, Guam a state, Japan slightly repaired by the U.S., thus being a puppet state, American Samoa part of Samoa, and the Federated States of Micronesia an semi-autonomous country. Arstarpool 23:58, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * For the Chinese Civil War Japan, which would be a puppet state, would support the nationalists. This could result in a nationalist victory or a longer civil war. Oregonman 00:18, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * You guys are thinking like me. I put the Philippines and Japan as occupied territories retaining sovereignty as of 1948. I had Taiwan as occupied as well, but removed it to leave room for history to take its course. I figure with a permanent US presence may keep the Communists in China from rising to power. The same presence would certainly keep the occupation of Korea from happening. With the US taking less of a peace-keeper role in Europe, they would still been able to be a power to deal with in the Pacific. --SouthWriter 01:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

So who should end up in Taiwan, the People's Republic or the Republic? Arstarpool 01:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * The Communist uprising, being now at the United States' back door, does not succeed. The US backs the nationalists from its base in Japan, placing a large contingency of troops on the island of Taiwan. The Kai Shek government remains on the mainland. SouthWriter 13:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Italy
I was thinking about making the page for Italy, but I need some help and I need to do some research. I know (or I think I know) that Italy wasn't bombed that much in WWII. So it wouldn't have destroyed cities. But I know that the Allies invaded Italy up from the south (right?). I don't know how long Italy had been unified and I don't know what really held it together, but maybe Sicily broke off and there was a Northern Italian nation? And the Papacy would still be there. I want help formulating my ideas =) ProfessorMcG 23:40, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind...Fedelede already did something with Italy =( ProfessorMcG 23:41, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, McG. However, I've only made a page with Padania (Northern Italy and Tuscany) while nothing exists on Italy (central one minus Tuscany) and Sicily (southern one). So I believe there's still pretty much space on Italy. Fedelede 23:43, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Italy was hit pretty hard. The southern parts should have escaped pretty well. The Italian Social Republic existed in the north, claimed the middle, and the south was pretty much safe So fire away. But to be honest remember that we should also have some new nations arise here. Sicily was Allied-controlled, so it would problably be independant, but thats for you all to decide. Arstarpool 23:51, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I created Sicily, so if you want to help say whatever you feel is necessary on the talk page. ProfessorMcG 01:25, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I have another idea for Southern Italy. When the the Italian Republic was formed the south was mainly pro-monarchy so I thought of a nation that became a monaechy. It could look something like this. ProfessorMcG 01:24, July 3, 2010 (UTC)



Archive
How do you archive a page? Arstarpool 03:40, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

DoneVegas adict 14:26, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

RIMPAC
i was thinking about writing an a page describing a US Pacific rim alliance similar to NATO, since the US is clearly focusing it's efforts on it's western frontier. thoughts? Destroyanator 04:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * As acronyms go, RIMPAC is going to be hard to formulate. As an abbreviation, though, it works well. We could go with Pacific Ocean Treaty Organization (POTO) or Pacific Ocean Rim Treaty Organization (PORTO). "POTO" is better, I think. SouthWriter 14:21, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. Who might join this Pacific Nato?Arstarpool 04:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Member nations of POTO:


 * United States


 * Canada


 * Mexico


 * Japan


 * China


 * Philippines


 * Australia


 * New Zealand


 * Chile


 * Peru


 * Ecuador


 * Columbia


 * Panama


 * Certain other adjoining "minor" nations, such as in Central America and Southeast Asia, may be included, depending on whether or not the denounce Communism. SouthWriter 14:21, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

USSR
In order to create a more varied European scene, could we have the Soviet Union collapse somewhere in the 80s or 90s? Presumably, without the Truman Doctrine, more nations in Europe and Africa would adopt communism but choosing their own paths, each different way seeming more appealing to different Warsaw Pact nations, eventually tearing the organization apart and bringing about the collapse of the USSR. This would then lead to a power vacuum as the communist states would lack a strong backing nation. Meanwhile any organization in Europe focusing on anti-communist ideals would lose cohesion and binding principles and would themselves fall apart, leaving behind only tattered trade links. Europe would have no dominating powers and just increase the chance for further anarchy and the construction of varied and interesting nations. Fegaxeyl 06:57, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I have that on Padania, however, it doesn't make a large effect on Padania (didn't want to build anything on top of it so that it would be easy to erase on case the idea is non-cannon. Fedelede 14:40, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * The Truman Doctrine has not been abolished, just the Marsall Plan. Though there is not a post-war presence in Europe, the Jewish community in America insists on a its government's support of the new state of Israel. This is enough of an incentive for Truman to support Turkey and Greece, at least financially. SouthWriter 15:04, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go with that. On the main article, I wrote that the Soviet Union collapsed twice, and then adopted a new system of neo-imperialism. Remember that since the US only keeps a presense in Far West Europe (Britain, too maybe) the rest of Europe is "open season" for the Soviets. Arstarpool 16:47, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go with that. On the main article, I wrote that the Soviet Union collapsed twice, and then adopted a new system of neo-imperialism. Remember that since the US only keeps a presense in Far West Europe (Britain, too maybe) the rest of Europe is "open season" for the Soviets. Arstarpool 16:47, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Portugal
If Portugal was so powerful would they take Gibraltar and not have Spain take it? ProfessorMcG 13:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Nah, someone suggested that it would be sold to Spain. Portugal isn't powerful in the sense of "military, government, and world leadership", it is just one of the more economically well-off countries. Arstarpool 16:20, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Germany
My idea about Germany is that because there is no Marshall Plan Germany remains destroyed and different regions succeed because of a weak economy. Because the US is not in Europe most of the German nations are communist. Oregonman 14:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about making a nation in East Prussia since the German expulsion was not complete. Remember that some parts of Germany might even belong to the USSR

!Arstarpool 15:46, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslavia isn't part of the Comintern!
I just want to make it clear to everyone that Yugoslavia is NOT (And never was) part of the Comintern. Could everyone please respect that in thier articalsVegas adict 18:39, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Dead TL
Is anyone else editing this still? I'm the creator and im not :D. Arstarpool 18:42, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

noooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (at least i hope not) Destroyanator 06:24, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Congrats Wasteland Europe!
We are now the most popular timeline on the entire site! Arstarpool 14:43, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal Process
In order to slow down the immediate creation of nations, and to keep the TL from drying out too quick, I have introduced a proposal process. I will list how it works below.

1. Type { { prop } } (without the spaces) to mark it as a proposal.

2. Write your nation down here. To put a link, just do { { WasteEuro|Article name here } }

3. It will be reviewed for 1-3 days upon completion.

4. It will either become canon or it will be marked obsolete.

Tell me if you think this is okay.
 * Thanks, I had been trying to figure out how to make a template from scratch for a while. SouthWriter 03:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I basically went into source code and copied down the 1983DD one, and removed all links to it. I thought about making one specifically for this TL, but decided this one would be more useful. Arstarpool 03:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my next step! You just beat me to it. :-) SouthWriter 16:43, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Sicilia
Create by ProfessorMcG. Might have control over Italian North Africa (possibly?)

I will assure this proposal process will not be like in 1983:DD, it will be alot quicker and easier:-)Arstarpool 01:34, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Until in some years this becomes impossibly large and we'll have to wait 2 months and a half for graduation and there will be about 40 proposals at a time...

But this proposal process will slow the death of the althist. I bought us 2, maybe three years? Arstarpool 03:09, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah! Your frustration with 1983DD is very clear. However, the only thing that slows the process there is the number of proposals. None of us has time to look over every little article. The key is to make the article compelling to begin with. And add to it often to make it more plausible. If it just sits there, with only the "idea" staring us in the face, then it will remain a proposal until some "better" idea makes it obsolete. SouthWriter 15:11, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * And what might the nation be? It would be great if you filled it in :-)Arstarpool 22:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * And what might the nation be? It would be great if you filled it in :-)Arstarpool 22:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Padania
Created by Fedelede. Might have puppet states over Southern France (possibly?) and owns Nice.

Any objections to graduation? Fedelede 15:12, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Southern France (Compté de Provence) has been sold to Switzerland, and thus will not be a "puppet state" of Pandania. Since Pandania is the first truely "new" nation created, I think it should have at least a few days of discussion to establish a consensus on its plausibility and viability in a Europe "abandoned" by the USA. SouthWriter 15:32, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * But can Padania stay with the area east of the Rhone? Fedelede 15:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * This area might be under a Soviet puppet regime. Since the area was already split in three, hell, why not! Arstarpool 16:00, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can somebody help me with the national template? Please read the article first. Fedelede 23:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * The only way I could do is if I removed the leaders...at the top of the article, just right the king and prime minister. Arstarpool 03:27, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to graduation? Fedelede 03:26, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. Get another "nope" and we'll get this on the graduation list. Arstarpool 03:41, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * im not sure if my vote counts, but it seems fine to me. Destroyanator 05:48, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

== ==

United States of America and Federated States of Micronesia
Article created by me but adopted by South. Arstarpool 03:27, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, my own template! That kind of "shortcut" template is easy to make.


 * The US, having not financed the rebuilding of Europe, becomes a "superpower" in the Pacific after chosing to keep troops in Japan. The UN does not get financing from the US, and thus fails to be established as an organization for world peace. SouthWriter 03:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Would the UN even exist as an organization here? I have imagined it as a "every continent has it's own bloc" type thing, but if you guys want a UN in this TL, so be it. Arstarpool 03:41, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering that as well. If we don't have a UN, then the US in Japan on a permanent basis would probably mean Communism would stay out of Korea.SouthWriter 03:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where this UN would be located, either. Maybe it would be restricted to the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific in terms of members? Arstarpool 04:10, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is only going to be an organization of Pacific nations, it would not fulfill the purpose of its existence. If it survives at all, it might become something of an advisory organization of diplomats meeting to facilitate international relations, but having no "power" of its own. Without US support it would fail like the League of Nations did.
 * If, however, we want to get it started, I would say it should be located in Switzerland, and be a voice for stabilization as Europe seeks to rebuild on its own. --SouthWriter 15:42, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. Might it be recently established, as well? Arstarpool 22:52, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections? Arstarpool 03:42, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections? Arstarpool 03:42, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Japan
Up for adoption. Arstarpool 03:44, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take it, since it is under US protection. I'll at least get it started in the same direction with what I want the US to become.SouthWriter 03:48, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslavia (Wasteland Europe)
There seems to be some discussion on whether or not it would still balkanize on the "Nations" talk page. Arstarpool 16:27, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

The balkanisation has now been delt with, Any objections?Vegas adict 14:20, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Arstarpool 19:42, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

China
Article created by me but put up for adoption. Arstarpool 16:52, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I will be working on Japan in the next few days, along with it's occupier, the USA. The USA will be there to help the "free Chinese" win the civil war, so Communism will remain at bay (perhaps as a minor party, but I doubt it, for Kai Shek was a bit of a dictator when it came to opposition parties). With the Republic of China remaining free, China will prove a lot different in TTL. --SouthWriter 17:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

How 'bout Tibet? As I remember it was free up to 1950. Arstarpool 17:38, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Tibet would remain free with a free China keeping it safe! -SouthWriter 17:53, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * This might not be important, but what about Xinjiang? Were the Turkic peoples loyal to Communists? Or would the Turkic peoples join some Muslim Empire? ProfessorMcG 17:55, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea... Arstarpool 18:01, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the "Second East Turkistan Republic" was a result of a struggle late in WW2. It was backed by the USSR, and reclaimed in OTL by the newly formed People's Liberation Army (also communist) in 1949. Since it was "taken" from historical Chinese territory, I would assume the Chinese would want it back - especially if it were a puppet state of the USSR. It would be one of the many skirmishes the USSR would face on its weaker southern and eastern fronts. SouthWriter 18:25, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * This Republic of China would also control Mongolia. South, it's a shame you already put it up for adoption.... Arstarpool 18:04, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was you who "put it up for adoption." I just added the template. I was assuming that Mongolia would be granted independence by the present time in TTL.

Enlarged Soviet Regime
With the US only concentrating on the UK (somewhat), Portugal, and Ireland, the Soviets could pretty much expand as they please. My idea was that the satellite states in OTL (Poland, East Germany) would be part of the USSR while the OTL middle-western nations would be the new satellite states. Any other ideas? Arstarpool 18:07, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I figure that Germany would not be divided, but left to be rebuilt by whoever wished to "control" her. That would most likely be the USSR. The other east European nations that became satellites of the USSR would do so in TTL, along with some others, for sure. It will take some research to see how much western Europe could hold on to. Any nations that has been part of the Axis would probably be taken over by the USSR in some way or another as "spoils of war." Some of the occupied lands of mid-Europe would most likely also come under the reign of the USSR for a while as well. Which ones, though, will depend on the editors' research. --SouthWriter 18:25, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I believed the Soviet Union to be something like a glorified version of their OTL reign, with Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia as parts of the nation and Italy, the north Balkans, Scandinavia and most of France as satellite states before collapsing in the '90s. Fedelede 18:30, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the other European states would be the USSR's satellites, for example. Finland, West Germany, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and possibly the other Scandinavian countries would be satellites while Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, (Some of the Italian states), Turkey, Yugoslavia, Albania and Greece would be independent. If we go with Bosnia separating from Yugoslavia i think they would also be a USSR ally as they would desperately want to get back at Tito and Yugoslavia.Vegas adict 18:38, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I sent Fedelede a "secret" map on how I originally wanted the USSR to turn out. You can see it here: This is only a suggestion, and is in no way accurate... Arstarpool 19:57, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * However, I do believe that by the early or mid-90's the Soviet Union would collapse. Fedelede 20:10, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Fedelede, the only reason they collapsed in this TL is because of the Cold War. Arstarpool 20:23, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I imagine that, eventually, a Soviet Union of this size simply could not last. There would be strong resistance, perhaps even in guaerilla form, and it would collapse. Perhaps this would happen the first time around - it tries to push into France and Scandinavia but is overwhelmed by local resistance, which then causes a domino effect of lost confidence and causing it to fall back to its earlier borders. It would then try again, but Europe would be ready in whatever limited capacity it could muster and stall it somewhere in Poland. If the USSR were having trouble on a front elsewhere in the world it lends credibility to a European defeat. This second campaign could reshape the political scene, leading to a more ethnically-shaped Germany and Eastern Europe. Then, in the 90s-00s neo-imperialism could rise and slowly spread itself back across Eastern Europe, with the other nations only really awakening to the threat in the last few years. Fegaxeyl 20:19, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Arstarpool: The Cold War was not the only reason the USSR collapsed. It was also because the Soviet's range of losing wars was too high, that the Soviet's economy was too backward, and that Russia's age had passed, which slowly started to make the USSR people lose confidence and try to secede. Maybe that would happen on this TL too? Plus there would be resistance over the time, especially on different-ethnicity nations such as Finland, East Germany and Romania, while the Austrian, West German, Hungarian and Italian populations would try to grip free of the Sovier Union, causing a general collapse perhaps ending up with Russia having a Trans-Ural republic. Fedelede 20:31, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Here's what i'm thinking: Since there is no Cold War in this TL, or if it is it is only in the Pacific, all OTL Sattelite States would belong to USSR minus Germany and Albania. They may take Finland as well, since it had belonged to them at some point. Arstarpool 20:47, July 1, 2010 (UTC) I believe the USSR and Comintern would evolve like this:


 * I have a minor problem with that as it shows Yugoslavia as an ally of the USSR at one point. I can't see Tito giving up his country's sovereignty after arguing with Stalin over it and walking out of Moscow.Vegas adict 21:10, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I made it because Yugoslavia would ask help to the USSR when Bosnia seceded. Arstarpool


 * With the heightened presence of the USA and a free China in Asia, I doubt that any real progress there. It may be able to hold onto the province in the west (East Turkistan) since it helped them break away in the midst of World War II, but I don't think it could take Mongolia. It might back the attempted overthrow of Korea, but I doubt if it could the US forces and Chinese forces there. --SouthWriter 21:41, July 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have Bosnia asking the USSR for help as they would still dislike YugoslaviaVegas adict 21:43, July 1, 2010 (UTC
 * Here is my idea for 2010 USSR (or successor): Russia, Poland, Ukrane, Latvia and the other 2 near it (too lay too look at a map :D),Finland, Kalingrad, and Georgia. Thoughts? Arstarpool 22:32, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was planning on making a Turkestan article (Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Turmenkistan, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Uyghuristan: Search them up on Wikipedia :) )
 * I was planning on making a Turkestan article (Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Turmenkistan, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Uyghuristan: Search them up on Wikipedia :) )
 * I was planning on making a Turkestan article (Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Turmenkistan, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Uyghuristan: Search them up on Wikipedia :) )

Italian League An article by me, not complete. Fedelede 23:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Turkestan An article by me. Fedelede 00:12, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I find it very implausible that these regions, although united in history, would up and out of the USSR at a time when it was perfectly stable. If you could shrink it down to include Uzbek, Kazak, and Kyrgyr, then I think it would be fine. Arstarpool 00:43, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

What about if we shrink it to Uzbek, Kazak, Turmenk, Kyrgyz, and Uyghur? Tajik is persa-iranian, so I don't see why did I even include it on the first place. Fedelede 00:46, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I thought China would control it...like in OTL. To keep things simple, why don't we just include the Soviet members? I plan of having the Soviets ditch Asia for Europe so it'll work out smoothly. Arstarpool 00:50, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Is that OK? Uyghur is only a claim. Fedelede 01:05, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Much better. Will this Turkestan be an ally, or at least on friendly terms with the USSR?Arstarpool 01:56, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I think so.

Chile
An article by me. not complete yet. Destroyanator 01:07, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Why does it control half of South America? I'm not feeling that. Arstarpool 05:16, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

they're just under occupation by Chile after a POTO invasion to restore democratic governance.

Ummm.....why don't we wait for someone else to create Argentina and Brazil, shall we? Arstarpool 05:41, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

someone needs to develop the history of Latin America, and im as good as any. Destroyanator 06:12, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any Objections to graduation? Destroyanator 20:51, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

No. Arstarpool 21:34, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Colombia
An article by me, not complete. Fedelede 02:09, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

French Republic of Vichy
Article by me. I intend for this to one of two French republics, this one in the south with the other one in the north. Any one can make the one in the north. Arstarpool 00:59, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by me. Bob 10:55, July 9, 2010 (UTC)