Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

Discussion Archives: | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7

Former Proposals: | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5

GENERAL DISCUSSION
The following is for general discussion to improve the TL that does not involve article proposals.

War!
Moved to: Talk:2009 Saguenay War (1983: Doomsday). Please direct all questions, comments, concerns, etc. about the Saugenay War (or whatever its name will eventually be) there please. Mitro 18:31, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Proposition for the Condition of Asia
Discussion moved to. Mitro 18:17, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

New Britain-LoN
Would anyone be adverse to New Britain joining the LoN? They technically don't occupy KwXhosa anymore, though KwaXhosa is bound by treaty not to attack NB. Bob 17:12, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not going to join immediately, certainly, since the LoN seems to act very slowly on these matters. Do they have a friendly nation that is a member of the LoN that can "sponsor their membership", if you will?  That would probably improve their chances.  Canada might work - looking thru the news, NB seems to have gone out of its way to strengthen ties with Canada in recent months.  Benkarnell 21:07, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * So if Canada said that NB was in a position to rejoin then they could albeit after some time. Also how come the LoN reacts so slowly. Surely they want to react swiftly enough to prevent another world war occuring? Bob 15:59, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they're much quicker to respond to a crisis than they are on issues like membership. Even our UN would't just drop sanctions and say "all's forgiven" after a week or so of compliance... or would they?  It may be that sanctions have been lifted for now, and I'm sure they would a team (likely from the RZA) to travel to KwaXhosa and report back to the LoN on how the transition to independent rule is going.  Any body would want to make sure that NB is acting in all good faith and is serious about giving up its claims/desires for Xhosa territory or influence.  And that would be required (I'm guessing) just to secure a permanent lifting of sanctions.  Actual membership will probably be a couple of months down the road. As international diplomacy goes, the timetable I'm proposing isn't really that short - look how long the EU takes to add new members.  Look how long it took the UN to recognize the PRC, not the RoC, as the legitimate government of China.   Benkarnell 20:11, October 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, though the Celtic Alliance would wish to ensure that they renounce all claims to former U.K. territory and claims of royal rights. The Alliance would even consider proposing if the situation regarding occupation was clarified. Mjdoch 09:40, October 20, 2009 (GMT)

New Hawaiian colony
In my latest news article, Hawaii's congress authorized a new colony in Ogasawara, or the Bonin Islands. I'd like some feedback on potential problems with the undertaking. Ogasawara is pretty far away. Do you think that Hawaii has the resources to create and maintain settlements there? Do you think they might come into conflict with Japan? And how do you think the ANZC itself will react to this claim? Benkarnell 21:10, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This discussion has taken off at. I think it would make the most sense for some of the diplomatic groundwork to have been laid in the last year or so. The problem is, I don't know enough about Japan *there*, or its relations with the ANZC and its satellites. Benkarnell 12:55, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

History Pages
I've noticed that some pages have been made for nations' histories. Is each nation supposed to have its own history page? --DarthEinstein 18:16, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I've only been doing that when articles get too large. Still if anyone wants to split the history section of a nation into its own article, that is perfectly fine.  Mitro 16:07, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hawaii probably needs it. That page has turned into a beast.  Benkarnell 20:07, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've generally been waiting until a page reaches 30k before splitting it. I've noticed that on some of the computers I use that if I attempt to edit a page that is over 30k in length there is noticeable lag.  Hawaii isn't there yet but feel free to split it off if you want to.  Mitro 13:59, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Latest archive
I moved an insane amount of discussion to Page 7, and added an equally insane amount of proposal discussion to Proposal Page 4. I apologize if I moved comments that people were hoping to get replies from: feel free to move them back, or ask if you can't find them. It was 92,000 bytes of text that I removed - and this page is still huge! Benkarnell 02:45, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Revising approved articles because of canon
I decided to revise the early history of Vermont and while I don't know if that's allowed, I had the best intentions.

There is a line on the timeline page which reads,

By Christmas, Hawaii is the only US state with a functioning government...

I had Vermont's state government still existing after Doomsday.

I changed the scenario to allow for the survival of Governor Snelling and enough stability within the state to restart the state government soon after DD.

I'm certainly open to correction here, but I want to honor canon and be realistic while doing it. You can't have Vermont with a stable government weeks after the bombs go off when Hawaii has been said all along to have the only functioning state government in December.


 * That line was written before we knew anything about Vermont. I think it's OK to change it in this case.  The question is: why did the US government not know about it?  They left for Australia assuming that _nothing_ was left in the US.  Was Vermont deliberately hiding?  (Or do conservatives just hate Vermont that much ;)?) Benkarnell 12:53, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * You can also ask that question about Aroostook, Superior, Utah, Texas (assuming it is approved as canon), Dinetah, the NAU. Other than Reagan's trip to Mexico, it seems like Reagan stayed put at Mount Weather and Bush at the Greenbriar. Plus, all the satellites were knocked out, electricity was sporadic and communications were out. I still want to be careful about contradicting what's already been said. Plus, it doesn't preclude city and town governments from operating, and working together, to form a provisional state or regional government. --BrianD 14:49, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote Vermont and West Texas as if the respective nations would have rejoined the US if it had reconstituted itself on American soil; I remember Superior and Aroostook having provisions early on to rejoin the US in such a scenario. West Texas probably would have wanted Bush to show up personally in Midland to believe the legitimacy of any US government; Vermont probably wasn't able to communicate with Bush and the APA until after it disbanded. Just because ham radio operators heard signals from the southern hemisphere, or someone with an operational shortwave radio got a signal from Australia, doesn't mean that North American survivor states would be easily able to communicate with Australia even 10 years after Doomsday. Now, yes. Then, no.--BrianD 15:36, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of those were not yet stabilized - not yet "functioning governments" - by December 1983. Benkarnell 16:30, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet functioning, but in the process of organizing themselves?--BrianD 18:19, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Roughly, I guess. It had to be bad enough that the people surrounding the President could not find one reliable "safe zone" in the US and made the calculated decision to flee to Australia.  Benkarnell 21:19, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * How would they have tracked the entire country, though? Would they have been able to keep track of all 50 states, or did they make their decision based on the best (but not comprehensive) knowledge they had?--BrianD 21:25, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
Hey guys,just wanted to say hi,I'm new to the site and I've already made some proposal nations,I'd like to see what you think about the articles,the first one I kind of screwed up and i could use some help,the other one I was trying to somehow fit into the story and that's about it,hope to get some advice later on --Vladivostok 12:36, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Welcome! Could you give us links to those proposal pages you mentioned? I'd like to read them. Hope you have fun in 1983: Doomsday! --DarthEinstein 15:02, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I found them. They're the articles on Mongolia http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Soviet_Socialist_Republic_of_Mongolia and Tibet http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Tibet%281983:Doomsday%29 --BrianD 15:26, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome, and compliments on your proposals.--BrianD 15:26, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

New Map
I think whoever creates the maps for this timeline needs to get started on the new one, as there are a ton of newly confirmed nations to be added to the map. --Yankovic270 03:10, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think anyone would create the maps - as long as it fits with canon and it's approved by the community. I might want to try my hand at some mapmaking myself... --DarthEinstein 03:25, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * XiReney and Fero made the first few world maps. The latest one is mine, and since last June it's become very out of date.  Problem is that I was not following 1983DD for most of August and September, when the flury of activity really began.  I've been trying to read all the new pages from August or later, but just keeping up with current proposals is difficult... anyone is free to ad some or all of the new nations.  Or maybe it would be best to break down the labor?  North America is the worst offender; maybe I can upload a world map with just North America updated, and others can take it from there.  Benkarnell 16:39, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've actually already started a new map. I decided to build it from the ground up; that is, I'm getting the information from the individual articles instead of from previous world maps. I started with the Americas, and they're about half complete, and I haven't started on the Old World. --DarthEinstein 16:44, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, then. Ground up is probably best: I tried hard to keep it free of errors, but they crept in anyway.  Are you still going to include flags?  They have been sort of a tradition so far, but now there are many, many more of them.  Benkarnell
 * I'll try to put the flags in, but first I'm going to get all the borders. After the borders, then I'll get the names and flags. I also thought of creating maps for each continent simply by slicing up the world map, which we can put on the pages for each continent. --DarthEinstein 17:11, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Hey Darth! What is the soonest time you can estimate the map being finished? --Yankovic270 21:13, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure; so far I've drawn the borders of most nations in North and South America, as well as the Alpine Confed, Celtic Alliance, and the small French nations. After I'm done the rest of Europe, I'll move south to Africa, then to Asia and Oceania. After that, I'll fill in the names and flags. So... there's still lots I have to do. By the way, if you notice any nations missing from the list, put it on. I'm using it as a referance to find all the countries. --DarthEinstein 21:31, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Could you post an image of the North American section on my talk page? I'm curious on how my nations look. By the way, Assiniboia has the borders of the old Red River colony. --Yankovic270 21:44, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, I haven't put the names or flags in yet, but if you want me to get a partially finished version, that's fine. --DarthEinstein 02:17, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say (as a comment after a long time), you might put it in a partially finished version when the names are done. Then we could decide if we insert the flags as well... But I would guess a separate map with flags would me optically more proper. I offer to do the "FLAG MAP Work as a first contribution after a long absence. --Xi&#39;Reney 17:55, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Great to have you back! Also, here's a map update: I've drawn the borders for the North and South American and European countries, as well as the African ones except in South Africa, which has really confused me. After I'm done drawing borders in Asia and Oceania, I'll put the names in, and leave a space under each name for a flag. --DarthEinstein 19:50, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just did a whole lot of work on the map, and I think it's ready for people to see the first version. As you can see, the countries are not yet labeled. I'd like to hear any concerns over the borders of the countries first. If you've been following the TL you should be able to recognise most of the countries. The darker grey regions between the NAU and Utah, Utah and the Navajo Nation, and Aceh and Indonesia, represent condominion or contested territory. Any suggestions for the next version are appriciated. --DarthEinstein 23:14, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a little jarring to see so much of Africa, China, Europe, even the eastern U.S. in dark grey. That aside, the map looks good.--BrianD 23:18, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

I like the map as well but I have some issues. I may have relented on NAU Nebraska, but I respectfully want all of non-NAU Nebraska to be under Lincolnite control, that would give the Lincolnites both more territory and a border right next to the NAU. Plus the loosly-bound nation of Cave City, like the Okanogan to Victoria, is a potential site for future expansion of Virginia. That warrents, at least until official control is obtained, those dots of colour you see marking influence. --Yankovic270 02:19, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Right; I haven't added any "influence dots" yet, so I'll do that for the next version. I'll expand Lincoln also, but keep in mind that the map I built this off of didn't have state borders, so it will be approximate. --DarthEinstein 02:25, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with zones of influence. The map ought to represent definite borders for each country; in some areas (like India, Sikkim) these zones can literally change by the day, or a country can claim influence that it can't realistically maintain. The issue should be discussed, though.--BrianD 02:40, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. The last map did not include claims for that very reason.  Now that we have dozens of new countries, we have to pick and choose what information to show.  This is really good!  It looks so clean, and the colors are easier to distinguish.  THe small changes I'd recommend:
 * Sikkim's independent government was overthrown a couple of weeks ago, IIRC.
 * I don't think that the North American UNion overlaps with Utah; that was an error on my map.
 * The NAU might more accurately be shown as three countries with a common color, like the Nordic countries. (I'm pretty sure that when I made the other map I hadn't actually read the NAU page.)
 * More of central Italy should be no-man's land. My map used diagonal stripes only because the Alpine and Sicilian colors were too hard to tell apart when I used dots.
 * But basically... wow! Benkarnell 03:24, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks about Sikkim, I did not hear about that. So it's part of the UIP now?
 * I'll fix the Utah-NAU border.
 * I'll separate the states for the NAU. While doing this, I tryed to decide what to do about Siberia. With the addition of Mongolia, Uyghuristan and Khazakhstan to it, I thought I might want a solid border like with the Nordic Union and, as you said, the NAU. But I thought they might be too centralized a state for that. What do you think?
 * I based Italy off of the page; for territory it said that they owned it up to Milan. I did think this was odd, and I guess you agree. So will they extend to, say, the ruins of Rome? Also, don't you think Sicily might be able to control the nearby Tunisia also?
 * Thanks for the help! --DarthEinstein 03:42, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, that is odd about Sicily. I think the no-man's-land as I had described it was based on the previous map. Maybe Sicily only claims Italy up to Milan?  Or, Milan was the high-water-mark of their advance, but is not securely under their control?   And I know I have heard something about Sicily controling at least part of Tunisia.  As for the Siberian states, I'm not sure, since that's a family of articles that I also have not read yet.  (Sorry!)  Finally, can I suggest a darkish blue for the NAU?  Benkarnell 04:03, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Okay here's the next update on the map. I haven't added names yet, but I have corrected a few things and added the dots representing influence. If there are any countries I've missed or made the borders wrong for a country let me know. --DarthEinstein 18:40, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good. A couple things I'm now noticing, and sorry for not seeing them before:

Benkarnell 22:05, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Namibia's situation is still far from certain. Same iwth South Africa, actually, but at least this approximtes the countries we know are there.
 * The Yugoslav Union is smaller - I think it may have lost Slovenia & Dalmatia for unknown reasons.
 * Manitoba/ Assiniboia is small, but not _that_ small, I think.
 * I don't think Sicily would control all of Tunisia, on its exact original borders.

Wow,this is exactly what I envisioned the USSR would have in terms of land.It's great,good job.--Vladivostok 19:37, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you missed . Also I know  is pretty small but is there any way you can make sure its identified on the map?  [EDIT] Never mind.  When I zoom on the map I see that you did mark it.  Mitro 20:33, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Zanzibar will be labeled, though I know right now it's practically invisible from a zoomed out point of view. From what I read about Algeria, it is divided into city-states, and so I wasn't sure how to make any borders. I decided that once I got to the name-adding stage I would just write "Algerian city-states" in the region. And thanks about the USSR, I was unsure if that was accurate. Should the different republics be separated by black lines, though, like with the NAU and Nordic Union? Also I'll correct Tunisia, Assiniboia, and the Yugoslave Union. With regards to South Africa though, I understand that it is in a state of canonical flux or something, so maybe I should just keep those borders for now and it can be corrected later when it calms down. --DarthEinstein 22:28, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,the Union isn't as decentralized as the NAU or the Nordic Union,I think keeping it this way,with the colorless borders in the middle would work fine.--Vladivostok 22:33, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Once I find a decent map of BC, I'll actually mark New Caledonia/Prince George's borders, as they encompass a lot more than marked. --Oerwinde 20:10, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Bc2010.png shows how BC will be divided next year, but also shows the borders of Prince George/New Caledonia. --Oerwinde 21:37, October 31, 2009 (UTC)



I respectfully wish that whoever is creating the new map use these borders for Assiniboia. It is an old map of the Red River Colony, another name given for it was Assiniboia. --Yankovic270 20:34, October 31, 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll do that. --DarthEinstein 20:43, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Just a small note on North Germany, though it is not (yet?) included on the map in the article itself, the nation has recently expanded to the formerly Dutch province of Groningen, it might be nice if that were reflected on the map. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:58, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * It is included, just very small. I'll be sure to make the change. --DarthEinstein 16:24, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

I think we recently agreed that Belize is smaller, mostly coastal, and that a lot of the inland territory was lost. I could be wrong. Benkarnell 14:07, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think Assiniboia is too large. Mitro 15:04, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

It is not like I am claiming all of Canada between Vctoria and the Remainder Provinces. I don't think Assiniboia's claim is excessive. The only impact is Winnipeg, as they pretty much made the area around it just as much a no-man's-land as the area around Chernobyl. And they did not claim it all at once. Maybe they started with what is shown on the new map so far, and just recently reached these borders. --Yankovic270 15:27, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think my biggest problem is that you are basing this on a vague and old colonial map and not on any other evidence on how far the nation could extend its borders. Furthermore what about the Lakota?  They managed to take over most of North and South Dakota and yet that map makes it look like that never happened.  Mitro 15:37, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Ok fine. get rid of the colonial map. But Assiniboia still controls at least a small chunk of North Dakota. You said that the Lakota took over most of the Dakotas. It is possible that there is a a small piece that is not in Aboriginal hands. --Yankovic270 15:43, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Status of Siberia
I suggest to change the status of the Siberian state. It should not claim to be a republic, it's supposed to claim to be a temporary territorial administration until the pre-war states will be restored. Its official name could be something like The Provisional Authority for Coordination in Statehood and Economics Restoration — PACSER (Временное Управление по Взаимодействию в Государственном и Экономическом Восстановлении — ВУВГЭВ). Its official aim is to restore the pre-war states including the Soviet Union (with all its fifteen republics), Mongolia, and the People's Republic of China. It does not claim to have annexed Alaska — it claims that "its Alaska" is the legal successor of the State of Alaska and it will be re-admitted to the United States as soon the country will be restored (but the Siberian authorities refuse to recognise the regimes that appeared on the former US territory and therefore consider Siberian Alaska the most lawful of all). — Hellerick 06:56, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * You know I was thinking of retooling the Siberia article for quite some time now. I noticed a few potholes and things that wouldn’t happen in our timeline (for example the capital of Sovetskaya Gavan wouldn’t have been hit, but there was another major base near by that would have been plastered). Since I am currently concentrating on Northern Europe at the time I can relinquish control of the article if someone else wants to mess with it.

But before someone dose here are a few of my suggestions I thought of while I considered redoing the page.

First the country would still be called the Soviet Union (although officially it would be called the name you mentioned above).

Secondly the territory would change a bit. I propose that the soviets would lose some territory in the east of Siberia, but would gain some in Central Asia. The territory could stretch from northern Kazakhstan down through the deserts and the Aral Sea into western Uzbekistan and northern Turkmenistan. With a wetter climate these areas could be turned into farming regions to help feed the Soviet population. Later on its territory could expand further east and west.

Third West Alaska would fall under Soviet influence rather quickly (as in just after Doomsday) before the rest of ANZC of Alaska has anything to do with it. This is less do to the desire to take over territory as it is that Western Alaska is closer to Russia than it is to anywhere else in the world.

Finally the leaders of the Soviet Union would all be from the military weather they come back from Afghanistan or were in Siberia/Central Asia all along.

So what do you think about my suggestions?--ShutUpNavi 14:48, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to jump into the conversation but I also thought that some territory in Central Asia would be a reasonable assumption. Not in the most affected areas obviously but perhaps a provisional Kazahstan Republic,perhaps with only Pavlodar and East Kazahstan stable enough to be in the Soviet Union. I don't see any reason why they would lose any territory in the east,considering that only Yakutsk and Vladivostok were hit in the most eastern regions. I also think that by turning Siberia back into the Soviet Union would make my newly created articles on Mongolia and Alaska fit in perfectly with the TL,as I was finding it rather difficult naming Mongolia any differently than a Soviet Republic and that would mean that Siberia wasn't a republic,but a union or federation. I'd love to write about this part of the world,maybe even push my East Turkestan idea through.--Vladivostok 16:13, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * I like these ideas, especially the different status of Alaska. I assume, therefore, that the USSR considers the ANZC regime to also be a usurper to the title of "successor to the USA".  Establishing the oblast earlier than 1990 makes it much, much harder for the Aussies and Kiwis to do anything about it.  Benkarnell 16:43, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I could alter the timeframe of the attacks,but there needs to be a lot of editing in the Siberian(now Soviet Union?) article. It doesn't specifically say that Mongolia or Alaska are part of the Union,even though the map states otherwise.--Vladivostok 16:59, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

I have a concern with Alaska. I have been toying with the idea of having a surprise Siberian attack happen sometime in 1993-1994 as part of my article. The war would be short and it would end quickly with the APA agreeing to cede western Alaska and there would be a symbolic peace ending Doomsday day between Siberia and the APA. The events of the short war however would be a blow to American morale and convince Bush to end the APA, which is currently not really explained sufficiently IMO on why he did so in canon. Bush would see his failure of holding on to all of Alaska as a sign that the APA/USA could not possibly exist anymore as a sovereign nation in the post-Doomsday world and convince him to cede control over the Australia and later ANZC. Mitro 00:28, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

My idea is that "Siberia" is in fact a kind of union of survivalist regimes. After the war there was a complicated issue of who is the highest authority, and who is the successor of the Soviet government. So they came to an agreement — none of them is the successor. The Soviet government will be re-established later, when the problems of vital importance will be solved. Plus, the agreement guarantees non-Soviet groups (from Mongolia, China etc.) that their territories won't be absorbed in the future. Siberia did not conquer Alaska — Western Alaska started as a local survivalist group that came into the Siberian sphere of influence simply because the Siberians were the first "civilized power" they came into contact with, and they heavily depended on them in the first years after the Doomsday. The Siberians consider ANZAC (with its "puppet" organizations like APA) "predators" who are trying to take over the North while it lies in ruins and can't defend itself. — Hellerick 13:06, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,Hellerick,I unfortunately didn't see your suggestion. I have just added new content,nothing was erased,i just wanted everybody to see a couple of my ideas. Unfortunately,I'm not that good at editing for now,so I didn't add links to newly made republics because I just don't know how. If i was hasty with my decision to edit,I'll remove the new content myself.

--Vladivostok 19:43, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

So,should I wait for the screening process for knew articles,or say that I'm,more or less,finished with the USSR page and it's associated articles?--Vladivostok 19:32, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Recent news item
I have to object to this item that was recently added to the news section:

"October 19, 2009, 19:53 GMT: KwaXhosan Terror strikes British industry: Rhoflag.png Kwaxhosa.jpg PORT ELIZABETH - In the areas where New Britain has been heavily industrialising, KwaXhosa has made a shocking move and has captured key industrial areas. KwaXhosa fielded mechanical infantry purchased from Sicily and has deprived New Britain of its industrial strength. Parliament is encouraging workers to passively resist and refuse to work in the factories. To support them, New Britain is printing more money to pay them."

This is not plausible. KwaXosha was just recently under New Britain occupation and now apparently they were able to build up their military enough to take them on after just a month of freedom. That does not make sense. Furthermore how was Sicily able to send them weapons when they are pretty much surrounded and cut off by the ADC and LoN? Mitro 00:01, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * No, and indeed NB ended their occupation with _very_ generaous terms, obviously intended to bolster its human rights record with the international community. KwaXhosa could essentially do whatever it wanted, so long as it didn't attack NB, am I right?  Why is it now breaking its treaty with a nation proven to be stronger, since it was occupying its entire territory up until last month?  Unless the KwaXhosa leaders' stated goal is to end up a New British province with no diplomatic consequences for New Britain.  Benkarnell 01:09, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * [EDIT] I thought of this today: NB announced just a couple of weeks ago that it was pulling out of KwaXhosa. It's almost certain that there are still some NB troops in the country in the process of withdrawing.  While there's no way KwaXhosa is in the position to launch a military attack (and no reason they'd want to), there are probably some militant groups who would attack NB soldiers in the process of leaving, for whatever reason.  The article does say "terror" after all - why not "terror"ism?  I don't know what the result of the attacks would be, but NB could possibly use it as a pretext for reversing their withdrawl: KX is "not ready" or what-have-you.  Such would probably still hurt NB diplomatically, however... I'm not sure there's a plausible way for NB to go back on their promises without offending the outside world.  Benkarnell 21:35, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

League of Nations members
What is the official process for application to the League of Nations, according to the timeline? I couldn't find it on the LoN page. As far as getting a nation joining the LoN in canon, is that something the community here has to approve? BTW, Douglas's plane should arrive in Tonga next Monday. He'll meet with Newman on Tuesday, Birch on Wednesday and King Andrew on Friday.--BrianD 02:33, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * We never established that. IMO there are some nations that exist that should have been members of the LoN from the beggining because of their history, but for whatever reason aren't.  We really need to establish the current list of who was a member of the LoN now that there has been so many new nations added to canon.  Mitro 16:32, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's okay, I'm proceeding as if Vermont has never been a member. I'll research how a nation becomes a member of the U.N., and have Vermont follow that format (as the LoN is based partly on the UN). Douglas should make his presentation a week from now. Would it be safe to have the LoN immediately grant Vermont "observer" status, with a vote on full membership to come later in the year?--BrianD 16:50, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the national histories, here are those nations IMO that should be members of the LoN currently:


 * Aland
 * Algeria
 * Alpine Confederation
 * Aroostook
 * Cleveland
 * Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand
 * Bolivia
 * Brazil
 * Canada
 * Celtic Alliance
 * Chile
 * Colombia
 * Cuba
 * Denmark
 * East Caribbean Federation
 * Ecuador
 * Faroe Islands
 * Finland
 * France /RTA
 * Friesland
 * Republica de Galicia (has been in contact long enough with the outside world to be a member)
 * Greece
 * Greenland
 * Guyana Cooperativa
 * Iceland
 * Islamic Indonesian Islands League
 * Madagascar
 * Mexico
 * Monaco
 * Municipal States of the Pacific (If the RZA is a member I can’t see why the MSP should not be as well. Both were formed under ANZC/SAC supervision.)
 * Netherlands Antilles
 * New Britain (maybe an original member though they might be relegated to observer status)
 * North Germany
 * Norway
 * País del Oro/Western Sahara
 * Pakistan
 * Paraguay
 * Peru
 * Philippines
 * Portugal
 * Puerto Rico
 * RZA
 * Republic of San Juan
 * Somaliland
 * Soviet Socialist Siberia
 * Spanish Republic (LoN has a base right next to it, seems odd though they would not be a member)
 * Sweden
 * Sri Lanka
 * Superior
 * Tonga
 * United American Republic
 * Venezuela
 * Vermont
 * Victoria
 * Zanzibar

Comments, questions, anyone I missed? Also, a couple of questions of my own:
 * What exactly are the relations of the associated states with Australia? Are they able to represent themselves independently in the LoN or are they mere observers?
 * Are the member nations of the Nordic Union and the SAC represented separately or by the organization? What about the separate components of the RTA? Mitro 17:05, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * One option is to retroactively admit everyone. Another is to stick with the list of members and observer states as they currently exist, and have the LoN go on what amounts to be a large membership drive, recognizing the large number of nation states that have recently become known on a global basis, and have no strikes against them in regards to official membership.--BrianD 17:16, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense but neither of those options are necessary. The reason the LoN membership is as it is currently is because that when the article was first created there were only a small number of nations that were canon at the time.  Now we have a hell of a lot more nation articles, many with histories that make it plausible that they would be a founding member of the LoN.  For whatever reason though, editors (myself included) have consistently said our new nations are not members.  If the contact date is early enough, the nations are recongized by a majority of states and they are not some rogue state like Sicily or a dictatorship like Virginia, there should be nothing stopping an editor from adding their nation as a member.  Mitro 18:15, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * None taken. I needed to know exactly how the process works. With that in mind, unless there are objections Vermont is on its way to becoming a member.--BrianD 21:10, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

My nation of Lincoln might be polite enough to get into the LoN, and the Virginians are in the midst of loosening the iron fist considerably. --Yankovic270 21:22, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * Like Mitro says, the list as it currently exists is there because it was written early, before we knew about most of the world. The SAC is listed as a single member because, well, we didn't know a thing about any of the individual South American states.  The Nordic Union is listed as a single member because in the early versions, it did sound like one big country.  It was a little later that Realismadder clarified its status, as a union of independent nations and a re-creation of the Nordic Council.  One of the reasons the ANZC satellites _are_ members is that, at the time, Hawaii was one of the few fully-deceloped nation pages we had, and the list felt empty without it.  Now of course, it's basically canon, and I'd be very sad if "my" country lost its membership status.


 * I would say that any stable nation with an Atlantic, Pacific, or Indian coastline is probably a founding member, no questions asked. So are stable inland nations that were in contact with the "mainstream" world by 2005-ish.  Vermont, it seems, was in contact, but its government was until no wary of the LoN, which is fine.  I'd imagine that the members would want a little more time to "get to know" more recently contacted nations.  Lincoln is as stable & peaceful as can be, but it's probably only been contacted in the last 1-2 years: definitely a good candidate for membership.  Benkarnell 21:50, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Lincoln being added to the list.--BrianD 00:04, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Benkarnell; the founding nations in the League should be nations that can access the wider world, and have been able to do so for several years. The newer nations on the international scene (mainly inland nations) would have to wait. --DarthEinstein 00:23, October 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. And I should add to what I said before: there are plausible justifications for the ANZ satellites being members.  I can imagine a situation where the Brazillian negotiator says, "We demand that the League of Nations have its headquarters in Sao Paulo and that none of your satellite states get to be members!"  The Autralo-Neozealandian negotiator responds, "Rubbish!  The League will be headquartered in Aukland, and all of our sassociated states must be allowed to join!"  The Brazillian says, "Very well.  We'll put the headquarters in Tonga, but none of your satellites can join."  The ANZ-er says, "A Tongan headquarters we can agree to, but our client states must get to join."  "Fine."  Benkarnell 01:35, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

I'll add the ANZC associated states, especially since the ANZC would not want to be that outnumbered by the South American states. However I don't think Lincoln would be a member. Its too far inland and I really believe that contact with it would be around the same time of the NAU. Mitro 14:06, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

I established the LoN page as a very early site of DD as I tried to imagine a functioning world organisation in the then-current situation. As my focus was on establishing a nearly balanced out system (I still believe) merging the UN and the old League of nations System I did not establish a valid and vivid admission system of new states...Only mentioned a General asssembly decision once a year... but due to the proposal and rapid expansions of the TL adjustments need to be made for sure...Will need to get back into the TL end the developmetns during last weeks as I am now a bit out of the worst in my new job here in Spain and found the time to get involved with 1983: Doomsday again....--Xi&#39;Reney 17:59, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Vermont has applied for membership and is anxious to get in; West Texas would like in, and I would say that if Dinetah and the NAU and other North American states know of it, the LoN knows of it too.--BrianD 20:53, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that poverall we've been asusming a little too much strictness over who can join the League. The only thing that should bar  a country from joining is if it is blatantly, actively ocupying a nation that doesn't want to be occupied.  I've seen reference to nations being blocked for not having a "real democracy".  Virginia, I think.  That shouldn't keep you from joining.  The UN, and the old LoN, have plenty of un-democratic members.  The point of the organization is to encourage dialogue, not democracy.  Benkarnell 21:37, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

/
These two pages don't seem to be working together. The former mentions a "horrifying warlord regime" that existed before 2006, while the other talks of a fairly peaceful nation that existed since Doomsday, which seems to be the successor to South Africa. --DarthEinstein 22:11, October 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, you're right. I wrote the "horrifying warlord" business before we knew exactly what was in the Cape.  Here are karsten's (aka Villa's) original comments.  They should be incorporated more exactly into the both articles (and possibly also the South Africa page):

The fictional Van der Merwe was ultimately replaced with the real-life Marais. Otherwise, this was the plan. It has the extra advantage of helping to explain the origins of New Britain (the Anglo-Africans fled the Cape and settled in Port Elizabeth). Benkarnell 23:25, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * After the attacks the only part of South Africa to remain under effective government control is the almost wholly Europeanised part round Cape Town. As the central government finally collapsed, local authorities assume control of the area.
 * To keep the support of the Coloured population, which was vital in beating down those riots that did occur in the Western Cape region, some Coloureds are appointed to government posts. The most important posts however remain in the hands of the Afrikaners.
 * One of the leaders of a Coloured militia created after Doomsday (I'm calling him Hendrikus van der Merwe for now, just to ease referring to him) grows dissatisfied by the relatively marginal posts given to his kinsfolk (or perhaps better said: grows dissatisfied by the fact that he wasn't among those appointed...) starts revolting against the Cape Town authorities and becomes an uncontrollable menace, ultimately taking over control over the state.
 * Van der Merwe streamlines the Cape into an authoritarian regime and starts some kind of personality cult.
 * Van der Merwe initially targets the Islamic Cape Malay population as a scapegoat for all problems of the RZA.
 * Ultimately, when this loses some of its effect, Van der Merwe also starts targeting another group that is somehow different from the norm: the local Anglophone population. Going as far as passing an edict that fully outlaws usage of the English language and forces people to use Afrikaans.
 * With Anglo-Saxons being actively persecuted, I guess international interference is only an inch away, regardless of the fact that it's happening in Africa...
 * After the interference the first truly free elections of the Cape are held.
 * The new democratic government chooses to remain a member of the New Union of South Africa. Which, being by far its largest member, the RZA has come to dominate.
 * Okay, that works. I'm no South Africa expert though, so if someone else could fix it up that would be good. --DarthEinstein 01:07, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of reading on it. I've been meaning for months to do some serious writing on the topic for DD, but haven't found the inspiration yet, I guess.  Mostly I'm interested in writing a proposal for KwaZulu.  But seriously, until the current growth rate slows a little bit, I don't think yet another proposal is very helpful.  I have yet to read the majority of proposals that are out there, to say nothing of many of the canonical articles.  Benkarnell 05:23, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

New categoriztion for country pages
I've grouped all 200-ish current country pages into regional subcategories, which can be seen in Category:World Country Profiles (1983: Doomsday). There may be a good way to coordinate them with Category:Continents (1983: Doomsday), maybe eventually reaching a point where everything can be put into a gepgraphic category of some kind. In the meantime, please try to put new country pages into one of the subcategories; that way the categories are easier to use. Benkarnell 05:23, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Your dedication to this timeline continues to impress me. Well done.  Mitro 14:51, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

World Map
Hello, does anyone know where to get the blank version of your world map? Thank you L3eater 20:41, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear contamination map


I have made this map of the nuclear contamination after the war. Of course it should not be taken to seriously, but it gives us idea of which area can be re-populated, and which cannot. Unfortunately it show us that many regimes created in Europe and ex-USA seem very implausible (especially the Alpine Confederation). On the other hand it shows us some surprisingly clean areas (e.g. in western Ukraine and Montana). — Hellerick 08:44, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * May I ask where you got your information?--BrianD 16:56, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * What information? This picture is based on File:1983nuked2.PNG, the red dots for nuclear strikes were Gausian-blurred in Photoshop (thus imitating the contamination being spread) and isolines of "contamination levels" were added. The ICBM markers are larger, thus they produce a larger contaminated area. That's why I said that this map should not be taken to seriously, but still in shows which places are more likely to be contaminated than the rest. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 19:16, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Are the isolines done by hand?--TEAKAY 00:02, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between radiation from elsewhere, and an actual nuclear impact. A state can survive radiation fairly easily, but an actual impact often destroys the chance for an organized government. The only exclusion to this "rule" is Lincoln, the destruction of Omaha did not affect it, as its capitol is Lincoln. --Yankovic270 19:48, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand Yankovic's comment. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 13:24, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he means that because Lincoln is west of Omaha, it didn't get affected by the blast nor by the fallout.--BrianD 14:18, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * THere's also wind patterns to consider, and this map doesn't show the recently "discovered" impacts all over the Middle East. But overall it's quite helpful.  I'm once again feeling skeptical about, for instance. Benkarnell 11:14, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously no Luxembourg is possible, in fact I think it would be one of the most "hot" regions of Europe.
 * I can take into account the winds if necessary (I guess it would make eastern Canada and northern Russia more polluted, and it probably would destroy the western Ukrainian "oasis"). If I'll be given am updated map of nuclear strikes, I'll make an updated map of the contamination. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 13:23, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * This does help to show what I've feared for a while - that our survivor states in Europe and northeastern America are altogether too optimistic. It's time to talk about what changes are needed for the Alps and similar places.  Benkarnell 16:19, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

i thought most of the detonations were airburts, not ground detonations so there would not be that much fallout. anyway, surely nations like the Alpine Confed have been canon for to long to alter. --HAD 16:47, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

The original nuke map needs a redo anyway. There were many areas hit that weren't included as well as some areas that shouldn't have been hit. Juneau for instance.--Oerwinde 19:53, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Changes to articles by anonymous users
I had an anonymous user who's apparently quite the rugby union fan make some changes to the sports by country article. How often does this happen, and how is it dealt with here?--BrianD 20:46, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Football or soccer?
An anonymous user has changed 'soccer' to 'football' a few times in the past two days over on the sports by country article. This actually raises a good point: being that this wiki has contributors and readers from all over the globe, should we reference soccer as football (and American football as, well, American football)? I have no objection at all to doing this. --BrianD 19:47, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at this on Wikipedia just now; check out this image. It shows which English speaking countries use which version. The most prominent English-speaking countries in our timeline (ANZC, Celtic Alliance, Canada) use the word soccer. But the non-Anglophone countries are not shown, so I'm not sure about them, especially considering that the SAC is important in the post-Doomsday soccer (or football) world. --DarthEinstein 20:05, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Good conversation on the sport by country talk page regarding this issue. Would love to hear from the other regulars here, including the creator of the Celtic Alliance page, regarding their views on the matter. I'm in favor of calling it football, not soccer.--BrianD 00:32, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

I'm strongly inclined to officially refer to soccer as football (with various exceptions by country, or other codes). But I would like direction from the leaders here before any kind of change is made, or clarification regarding me making it by myself or if it's a group decision.--BrianD 20:42, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Request to block anonymous user
An anonymous user has edited the sports by country articles six times now. I don't have an issue with his 'suggestion' (changed soccer to football), but I have a big problem with the manner in which he is doing it. Can we block this user?--BrianD 20:01, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll give them a warning first, telling him that his edits are unconstructive and he should be bring up any disputes on the talk page. If he ignores it and keeps doing it I will give him a short block.  Mitro 23:38, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good. Thanks. --BrianD 23:40, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Mythbusters?
Just out of Curiosity, what happened to the Mythbusters cast? Jamie Hyneman might be alive in Superior. Is it a Myth Confirmed or Busted on Savage, Bellechi, Byron and Imahara surviving Doomsday? And if so, s it possible that they could make a Doomsday version of Mythbusters. With all the survivors of the event there are bound to be many, many DD-related myths to test. --Yankovic270 00:12, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

US Air Force bases, Nuked!?
i let you that clear map for official USAF page, this is current but i think 1980 situation must be near (ecexion kirguistang), air base should be a prioritary target in a fast intercontinental war, nobody cares about tank and footy soldiers in the other side of the ocean. now se the map and think again, is or not that city nuked? can that new country stan up? i hope you can read that smallllll letter --Fero 07:00, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * First off please make sure to correctly mark the title to your section. Second, while some airbases would be targets, we can't assume all will be.  Bases connected with SAC can be considered targets but would minor airbases be?  Mitro 13:19, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my, I don't think anyone knew about Lajes Air Base in the Azores - the survival of the Azores has been one of the oldest parts of this project! And so much depends on it - the Azores were crucial in the early days as a bridge between the Americas and Europe.  I suppose Lajes could have been bombed, but the capital ~160 km away) survived, but the islands would be much more stricken than the  article has been assuming.  Does Lajes have to be one of the few targets that gets handwaved away - a malfunctioning missile?  Benkarnell 21:35, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see Lajes AFB survive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lajes_Field Anyway, we're making this up as we go, and we have the final say, not a USAF base. It almost certainly would have been targeted, but maybe a malfunctioning missile that hit off shore, close enough to do some damage but not put the islands in a world of hurt? And, what would the role of the American forces' detachment at the base be post-DD?--BrianD 22:12, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Aroostook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loring_Air_Force_Base --BrianD 00:49, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

A plausible "hand-wave" could be some of the targets weren't hit by nukes but were hit by conventional warheads. Destroying the target without irradiating the area. Conventional weapons were still a huge part of a nuclear war.--Oerwinde 19:41, October 31, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I can see that. We haven't really looked at conventional weapons at all.  They might be a good solution to some of our problems with "secondary" and "tertiary" targets.  They could help explain how some communities survived  near middle-importance military bases.  Benkarnell 13:16, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Edit War
Im sure you all by now have seen so many undo-edits in the recent changes section, no doubt all coming from the 2nd Sicily-War. Das Taub has been trying to add his own material into the page, and I don't think it fits. Now he's trying to shove it down my throat and he's starting to get get angry; we both are starting to get angry. Is it not right right as the creator of both the Confederation of Greece and the War to decide what's going to happen and what isn't? If anyone could diffuse the situation and stop an edit war, I'd greatly appreciate it. Mr.Xeight 01:11, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Expeditions into the deep South
I'm wondering if those editors who have been here for awhile could tell me what canon says about the southern U.S.? Without taking away the potential for an editor in the future to develop a good scenario for the region, is it possible or probable in the timeline that somebody - perhaps the WCRB - would have already explored the region in the past 26 years?--BrianD 20:30, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that on this page, there has been general agreement that race relations became very, very ugly. And that probably explains why no one has really delved into it: like South Africa, it would mean exploring some of the worst impulses within humanity; but unlike South Africa, the topic very close to many of us, and therefore much less comfortable or safe to explore in our fiction.  Basically: we know about Virginia, Kentucky, and Texas, which all kind of skirt the edges of the Deep South.  And we know the area is vacant enough that Cuban traders have become economically important.  (I imagine them as Cuban versions of the French voyageurs of around 1700, but that's just me.  I haven't done any work in the region.)  There has been talk of the two different races moving and settling into their own segregated clans, enclaves, and micro-states, but that's not canon either.  Benkarnell 21:07, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is a very uncomfortable subject to address. I had a few ideas for the region, and am wondering if I should go for it or abandon the idea, and chalk the south up as this abandoned area full of mysteries that may never be solved.--BrianD 21:11, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was just musing on why no one's touched the Deep South yet. (Part of it is also just that we knew _nothing_ about the interior of the USA until very, very recently.)  But it's no reason to avoid exploring there yourself.  Good writers, after all, never shy away from a topic just because it's unsfe or uncomfortable!
 * I think it's safe to assume that there are no Superior- or Vermont-type survivor states in that region of the continent. The region may be more like old France, with numerous survivor states (albeit more like survivor communities than complex small nations). I can't see, with the large number of states in the region, that someone hasn't explored the region (by now), so I probably will write up a WCRB report on the deep south that's vague, but gives some idea of what's been going on there the past 26 years.--BrianD 22:36, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Those reports on regions are a great new trend: East Texas, the Middle East, Spain. It helps us organize and plan events in a more logical & consistent fashion, rather than just limiting our focus to individual governments and states. Benkarnell 22:42, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Tell me, where is the strongest (that survives DD) KKK stronghold in the south? Because I could see a "whites only state" there. Maybe with its own little genicide of the local African American and Mixed Race populations. Those who don't die flee. --Yankovic270 00:05, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * There are probably a number of sad little pockets like that down there. Benkarnell 22:18, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

I've started the page. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/2009_WCRB_report_on_the_southern_United_States_%281983:_Doomday%29 Please put your suggestions here. I want to be vague and allow for future creation of stories, but give some insight as to why the region has not been a bustling center of activity in the past several years. --BrianD 22:51, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

2009 population of the former United States
I decided to count the population figures for the survivor states in the former United States, assuming that each number given was up to date. Here's what I've found:
 * Alaska - 50,000 (plus 15,000 in Siberian Alaska)
 * Aroostook - ?
 * Cave City/Portland/other - 10,000
 * Deseret - ?
 * Dinetah - 100,000
 * Kentucky - ?
 * Lincoln - 890,000
 * MSP - 211,500
 * NAU - ?
 * San Juan - 10,000
 * Superior - 1,400,000
 * Vermont - 759,000
 * Virginia - 1,500,000
 * West Texas - 846,000
 * eastern Texas - 30,000?
 * Wisconsin - 100,000
 * Hawaii - 80,000

Without knowing Aroostook, Deseret, Kentucky or NAU, I'm totalling 6,001,500 people (OTL U.S. population is approximately 303 million). I'm guessing the four nations w/o population figures together range from 500,000 to 1.5 million. Is this too low, too high, or about right?--BrianD 21:08, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's low. But it might be accurate.  Don't forget the population in the states without articles.  Most of that land is more-or-less waste, but taken together will probably add to the figure.  You also dodn't count the 15,000 in Soviet Alaska, but that's very minor.  Benkarnell 22:32, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * if it IS accurate, that's scary. That's 98 percent of OTL population in the U.S., dead or never born. It would be good, IMO, to see population estimates for the NAU, Kentucky, Aroostook and Deseret. If we account for those states, plus people in the unknown regions, as putting the total number of people at 15 million (5% of OTL), is that too high?--BrianD 22:41, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot about Lincoln. That puts the total to a known 6 million people alive in the former U.S.--BrianD 23:30, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

also the NAU is not a nation it is a union between the Provisional goverment of the USA, the Candaian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the Republic of Lakota. that raieses another point: technically, the USA still exsists, although cenetred in the Montana/Wyoming area. --HAD 15:33, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

English language titles
Wouldn't it be better if we made a policy to keep the titles of articles in English unless there is a good reason to do otherwise? I mean, the inconsistent usage of Spanish, French and German language names just gives the list of nations a horribly messy appearance. Especially with multilingual nations the names can even give wrong a impression (e.g. why does a Basque nation have a French language name?). Using English for page titles can eliminate this problem. Last, but certainly not least, in especially the New Germany series I have seen a various names which are either grammatically incorrect or have a very different nuance (e.g. neues Deutschland and Neudeutschland are very different concepts). Especially with the more obscure languages such errors could give dramatic results. I'd say that having a policy to use English language names would make things more consistent and less prone to errors. Now I'm not saying that non-English language names should be banned or anything, but I'd say there should at least be a functional proper reason for their usage (e.g. OTL Côte d'Ivoire). --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:51, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

N.B. Please note that all criticism in this comment was directed against the naming of articles, not in any way against their content.


 * I don't know - more Rules can be a good way to make things less fun. The creators of the pages (presumably) made their language decisions for a reason.  The Basque Country, for example, was first created as part of Louisianan's series on France.  (He speaks fluent French, FWIW.)  If inconsistency a problem, maybe the World Country Profiles page can be made to show only English names.  It already shows country names that often differ from page titles: nations whose titles begin with "Republic of" or something similar are usually displayed differently, in order to maintain alphabetical order. There's no reason why they couldn't also be listed using English names .  Benkarnell 22:44, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvienience that my aricle's tite created. While I had lessons in German in high school, I only really know the basics. I got the name by running New Germany into the Babelfish online translation service on Altavista. I am nowhere near as proficient in speaking or writing German as Louis is in French or Karsten must be in German. --Yankovic270 22:55, November 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * short titles, easy to remember and write if they are not in english, we can say "Pais de Oro (1983: Doomday)", but i know only yo mismo can say "parte noroeste de africa ocupada por sobrevivientes españoles (1983: Doomday)" (nortwest part of africa occuped bt spaniars survivors), i will not use a title like that. Please dont be evil with who not understood that nice languaje you have (russian/spanish/franch/chinese/japanese)--Fero 01:23, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

How about this for a compromise: authors can put the title of any nation article they create either in English or the language of the said nation. But to make it easier for us English-only speakers, if the author uses the local language either the author or someone else creates a redirect page in English. Mitro 19:02, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Mitro - that's exactly what I would stipulate. I guess I'm going to have to make some changes of my own, but this is the English version of the Althistory Wiki - I would expect that those who contribute to it should have a page name redirect at least in the English name.  Were this any other language, I would expect a similar statute.

Guyana
Why exactly is Guyana not a member of the South American Confederation? It's one of the earliest country pages we have, yet it's never been explained. Is it only a matter of time, do you think?

Along the same lines, with the SAC such a powerful and prosperous organization, have any neighboring states (Central America, the Caribbean) requested membership? Or candidate/observer status? Benkarnell 03:09, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * I have always thought that the natural expansion of the SAC would take it north into Central America and even Mexico. I think Colombia annexing that Costa Rica island is a good example of that.  Mitro 15:08, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

British-Azanian Codominion over KwaXhosa
Surely this only makes sense. After a disastrous war like the Xhosans had and the amount of violent pressure groups, surely the LoN would intervene to stop chaos from ruling. It only makes sense for two local powers to take control. Also what precisely is so strange about New Britain annexing small areas in its vicinity- just as the SAC and CANZ do? Bob 17:09, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

CURRENT ARTICLE PROPOSALS
Please list any and all current article proposals and their discussion here. If the proposals only involves a specific section of the article, please state that. Also remember to use  when reviewing new articles.

Operation Red Blood
A UIP operation to dissolve the communist break-away states -- MC Prank 17:34, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you add a link? Benkarnell 13:17, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

NEW
I have moved the obsolete Republic of Lincoln to Nebraska. I remember my derisive comments towards Nebraska, and I am "eating crow" for them. I just could not figure out any other place that could be called the Republic of Lincoln. That and with Omaha's presumed destruction, Lincoln's being the largest settelement in Nebraska gave it a lot more influence. Besides it is the capital of Nebraska anyway. --Yankovic270 00:24, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Overall I like the page and am very happy to see the Lincolnians thriving!
 * I have a few concerns, though, mostly small ones.


 * The North American Union is literally just next door, and like Lincoln and Gondor, it is a placeholder regime anticipating an unanticipated time when the rightful US government will be restored. The NAU even has a state called Nebraska, which I had assumed was based on some remnant of the state government.  I suppose the NAU's Nebraska could be a different survivor community that organized separately from Lincoln and joined the NAU.  Maybe now Lincoln is like a nonviolent version of Canada's Saugenay: The NAU sees no reason why Lincoln doesn't join up, while Lincoln sees no reason to be anything but independent.
 * When the USA government in Canberra dissolved itself, it was not in contact with the interior of North America. Even the NAU didn't find out about it for several years.
 * 1984 seems quite early for a community used to stable US rule to try their hand at forming a whole new country. I'd think that there would be a couple of predecessor regimes trying to maintain continuous rule in Nebraska, before giving up and forming a new republic.
 * For some reason, everyone calls it the ANZC, not CANZ. Don't ask me why.  Maybe it's to avoid the impression that the commonwealth is a pile of metal cylinders.
 * On a personal level, I'm uncomfortable just taking flags from another ATL. I think the group is creative enough that we can come up with good symbols for Lincoln.  Plus, flags with detailed seals, maps, and writing are bad enough.  A flag with a detailed portrait of an individual just seems like vexilological heresy, because it's so hard to make different flags look identical.  The flag of the State of Washington is just plain horrible, IMO.  That said, the flag is distinct and not at all unattractive.  It helps that the image is a high-contrast BW picture of Abe, not a full-color portrait like the monstrosity in Washington.  I think I could get behind a flag like this if the word "Lincoln" were removed, it being unnecessary.
 * Overall I want to repeat that I like what you wrote very much. Benkarnell 18:43, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the flag. I also request that the the North American Union may be adjusted so that the NAU abandons its claims to Nebraska in return for Lincoln renouncing its claims to any territory outside the pre-doomsday state borders. --Yankovic270 01:50, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * I kind of like the idea of a separate community in western Nebraska that did join the NAU. Benkarnell 02:28, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

It would not be compatible. If the Republic of Lincoln was founded in 1984, then by 1996 (when the NAU was founded) the Lincolnites would have solidified control over the ENTIRE State. The close proximity of the two nations would foster very good relations, but the border would be pegged at the Wyoming and South Dakotan borders. Since most of the NAU is Northwest of the Lincolinites, this would not affect the NAU too much. And it is not like I am making the Lincolnites too expansionist. I have them just claiming their state and nothing else but. --Yankovic270 02:19, October 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple things to consider.


 * Since the NAU page is canon, Louisianan would have to approve big changes to it (like disappearing his own State of Nebraska).
 * The NAU may have been founded in 1996, but its constituent communities are all older than that.
 * If the USA is as bad as we've been assuming, it's definitely possible that even after all these years Lincoln has not been able to secure the entire state. Nebraska's big, with lots of room for people of all sorts to roam around. Chances are Lincoln, with a small population, would not have much use for a lot of that prairie land and wouldn't expend the resources to control it, not when the only real advantage would be a larger spot on the map.
 * I don't want any of that to seem rude. I'm just trying to share my ideas.  Benkarnell 02:56, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ben. I only see Lincoln controlling only the eastern portions of the state, not the entire state.  Just one correction though, the NAU was my brainchild not Louis'.  Mitro 14:57, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right, I was confusing it with Utah. My apologies!  Benkarnell

Ok. I have relented on the issue. The western part of the state is in NAU hands. And does anyone like the other changes I made? Including the Doomsday memorial, and Abe Lincoln-centered culture. --Yankovic270 21:29, October 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * I do like the memorial. Is it in Lincoln, though? (The page never said where specifically it is). Regarding Lincolnism, there are people who see him as a deity? That sounds a little far-fetched to me, especially given that at least 10 percent of the populace are atheists. It seems more reasonable to me that, in a stable of a society as Lincoln seems to be, that any number of people would see Lincoln as not so much a god as an inspirational figure, perhaps not someone to worship but someone to model one's life and values after. People who follow Lincoln in this manner could be adherents of any religion, or no religion at all.--BrianD 00:08, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is in Lincoln. But I will keep Lincolnism. It is the North American equivalent to the Cult of the Once and Future King in New Britain. Except their is naturally evidence that the figure they worhip existed. Again, considering how much Abraham Lincoln is welded to the culture of the republic that shares its name, there might be people who would establish a religion based arround him. It is basically Christianity with a different face. I truly believe that Abe Lincoln is the only person who could fit the bill. He was kind, compassionate but he knew how to be firm. From the bits and peices I gleaned from church, that is exactly God's "personality". I don't want to offend, but if there is anyone in the Western world i'd "Deify", it would be Abraham Lincoln. --Yankovic270 00:32, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

And if anyone is good with Photoshop, I would like a picture of the Doomsday memorial. I would like it to look like the memorial I described. It is mostly copper, with iron deailing on the plinth, and of course a recycled concrete plinth. --Yankovic270 00:37, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

That's cool, Yankovic. May I ask why the city fathers decided to reinforce Abraham Lincoln with the culture so strongly?--BrianD 01:00, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Because of the fact that Abraham Lincoln is pretty much universally knowan as THE #1 Best US President EVER. And because of the fact that Lincoln was just growing up as a city when Lincoln was assassinated. And they need a guiding light, a hero to help them get through Doomsday. And Abe provides a perfect candidate. Basically now whenever they have a problem (and I am not trying to offend anyone) they don't ask themselves "What would Jesus do?", they ask themselves "What would Abe do?". I'm sorry but noone, not even Gerge Washington, can compare to Lincoln. --Yankovic270 01:29, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I am pretty much finished. Anyone want to comment on it? --Yankovic270 20:26, October 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * I still like most of it. And though I feel like kind of an ass doing it, here are still more bullets with the issues I still have:


 * 1984 seems much to early for Lincoln to totally give up on the USA and l themselves a "republic". Until then, I'd imagine they'd just stick with "Nebraska" or "Government for the Greater Lincoln Area" or something just as temporary-sounding.
 * They would hot have known about vents in Australia in 1996; it would have taken them at least until 2000 or later, ,IMO.
 * ANZC, not CANZ.
 * I agree that creating an exact replica of DC is unrealistic not just because they couldn't do it (basically they'll have to survive with almost no industry or modern technology, after the first few years), but because they wouldn't want to. Maybe a grid and a few bits inspired by DC, but by that time the Lincolnites would, probably and hopefully, be exploring their own identity and not just trying to copy the old USA.  Benkarnell 21:41, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to read my article I see. Until '96 or so (when the UPA was dissolved), the Republic of Lincoln was a provisional government, or "placeholder" for the US in the area. They did not give up on the US until then. Even now the Lincolnites are holding on to the increasingly hopeless dream that the United States would be ressurected. But again, as I said, the Lincolnites did NOT declare full independance until 1996. --Yankovic270 22:16, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to get snippy. I read it.  It gives 1984 as the date of independence and says, "It was not until April 8th, 1984 that a new government was organized. Calling itself the Provisional Republic of Lincoln, the new nation intended to act as a “place holder” for the US government until contact could be reestablished."  They acknowledged their placeholder status (they still do, dont they?) but they still call themselves a "repulic" and a "new nation", something that would take longer than a few months, I think.  At least they include the word "provisional" there, I suppose.  But at that point I really would expect they'd still be calling themselves a "state"., especially since this is supposed to be the Nebraska state government assuming control.  People like continuity in a crisis: in 1984, it would be more comforting to know that Nebraska was still functioning, than to hear them declare themselves a Republuc with a new constitution and everything.  Benkarnell 22:42, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying, but though it called itself "independant" at the time, if there was any chance to rejoin a new USA, they would have tooke it like that (snap!). Though there has been a growing independant idenity in recent years,they had at the time considered themselves American citizens. Now they mostly refer to themeselves as Lincolnites (Chosen because I think too many common nationalities include the suffix -ian. eg: Virginian)

--Yankovic270 20:34, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * All I'm saying is that they wouldn't have used the word "independent" at the time, for all the reasons above. Did you see the other issues I raised, also?  Benkarnell 22:40, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Even these extremely loyal Americans could see that the Federal control of the area after DD was an illusion at best. There was no higher authority to answer to in the area. And contact to the American Provisional Administration was virtually impossible. Hell, the impossiblity of the task lead the governor to either shoot or hang himself (it isn't specified). They had noone to rely on but themselves. So the Republic of Lincoln became independant due to the lack of any leadership outside the state borders. They hoped for the US to re-establish itself, but in the mean time had to lead themselves to survive. --Yankovic270 17:03, October 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're not budging on that, fine. It's a fairly minor thing, really, and I suppose Superior was declaring independence in that period.  Maybe after a year with no government, people _would_ want somebody to call the President.  But there's still no way they could have known what was happening in Australia in 1996, and no way, and no reason, to biuld a replica of Washington DC.  Benkarnell 03:47, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

They found out about Australia via the technological marvel that is HAM radio. And I had wrote it so that armed gang attacks a few years before the APA's dissolving severely damage the city. Thus they take the opportunity to reform the city into an as-close-as-possible replica of Washington DC. There. Both of your problems explained. --Yankovic270 19:47, October 31, 2009 (UTC)


 * If the Ham operators were able to maintain contact like that., we need to rewrite the entire history of the world. The interior of North America was cut off, in most cases until the mid-to-late 2000s.  It nees to be changed.  And a replica of DC is impossible.  Lincoln is a small survivor community.  Even if they did have the industrial capacety and the technology to produce such a city, thery would have no reason whatsoever to do so.  All that money, labor, and material is desperately needed elsewhere, and they would have very little to waste on a project like that.  Benkarnell 20:31, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Have it be a replica of the Lincoln Memorial and a street grid simmilar to that of DC's. And the HAM radio could have been sent from state to state to reach Australia, and not reach it directly. --Yankovic270 20:38, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Multi-National Peacekeeping Force (1983: Doomsday),, , , and
All articles relate to the Middle East. Very little is written on the region and these proposals are trying to flesh it out. Mitro 18:41, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

As an offshoot of the articles I am already working on for the Middle East, I have created proposed articles for both Israel and Jordan. I have posted my arguements for these nations on the Asia Discussion page rather than taking space here. As always, I am interested in any thoughts. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 03:40, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * I still haven't read the old ones through yet (I'm still behind), but from what I can see they are based on solid facts and research and really add to our understanding of the world. Nobody's objected to them - I don't know if that's a silent endorsement, or if everyone else, like me, just hasn't had a chance to read them yet.  Benkarnell 12:58, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * I've finally read them. They are definitely good, some of the best-researched stuff we have on the immediate aftermath, and well written to boot.  I'm all for making them canon and letting you be caretaker, playing around with them to finish their history. I also am happy to see one person handle the entire region; it will make things more coherent and less fragmented.  One question: you mention that Israel not only survived after the devastating nuclear attacks, but actually expanded.  How are you going to get it there?  Benkarnell 22:45, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind critique. I am fortunate in that I enjoy doing research for fun and kind of thrive on it. I have and continue to do an enormous amount of research on the pages I am working, which is why I have not added further to Lebanon or the MNF for example. I guess a big problem is you have to go back and look at how things were in 1983 versus today, so in Lebanon’s case I am reading a book on their economy circa 1982. My intention was to do a few articles, but things sort of took on a life of their own. I am currently working on articles which will cover the rest of the Arabian Peninsula nations. As previously stated, I intend to post my thoughts on the area “hopefully” soon on the Asia page. As to your question on Israel, without going into great detail, I see them annexing the West Bank and Gaza and fully integrating them into the nation. This will involve massive changes as to how Palestinians are treated. They will become full citizens (i.e. no special ids); elect reps to the parliament and hold seats in the government; and have greater involvement in policing these areas and in the military. Imagine, all the big boys involved in the Middle East will be gone: US, USSR, Europe, Syria, Egypt, UN, etc. Without this interference and given the mutual suffering taking place post D-Day, I see both sides coming closer together and eventually making peace, although there will be extremists of both stripes who will be unhappy. As for the Sinai, with the collapse of the Egyptian government immediately following D-Day, Israel will be forced to reoccupy it to deal with refugees and lawless elements. Another factor to consider will be the existence of an oil field Israel found and developed there, which it later had to turn over to Egypt. With this “re-acquisition” they would ensure their future energy needs. I see the Sinai becoming a protectorate and "maybe" voting to join Israel in the distant future. Beyond this, I do not see Israel expanding further. I hope this helps to answers your question. --Fxgentleman 04:50, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. If Israel is re-imagined as a a "unity state" instead of a "Jewish state", might it end up changing its name?  Although I can't think of any neutral names for the region... Holy Land is too religious, Levant too dull.
 * Any objections to removing the proposal tags from these articles? Benkarnell 17:27, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

The issue about the name has been on my mind as well. I have been toying with the idea of the United States of Israel or USI. I had done some research about how Israel came to choose that name and given the historical and religious context behind it, my instinct tells me they would not be willing to walk away from it. I definitely see Palestine as a new name being a dead issue. So, what do you think, does USI sound cheesy? It would allow them to keep the name but indicate the nation was “new.” --Fxgentleman 17:40, October 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a little banal, but how about "State of Israel and Palestine", along the lines of "Bosnia and Herzegovina" or "Austria-Hungary"? Like B-H and A-H, most (non-Arab) outsiders would probably shorten it to "Israel" in everyday speech.  Benkarnell 18:41, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is excellent and I am going to run with it. I especially like the analogy to Bosnia. What I will do is call it Israel and Palestine, which would allow both sides to feel represented. I agree over time people would most likely come to use just Israel like we do with Bosnia today. I will leave the file name as Israel, but I will make the adjustment in the introduction. When I get to the point where I am talking about the unification, I will explain the name change. I appreciate the help. --Fxgentleman 00:37, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Anyone object to moving these pages into the canon?  They have a fairly huge impact on the ATL as a whole, so it's important we have consensus.  Benkarnell 03:51, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I say we give them one more day.  Seriously, everybody, read them if you haven't!  Benkarnell 03:10, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm good with the proposals. Fxgentleman did a nice job on them, by the way! --BrianD 03:18, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * The only problem I have with these pages is that some of the ICBM’s are shot down too easy (as HAD pointed out on Israel’s talk page). But otherwise I like the general idea behind these pages. Most of the issues can be worked out on the talk pages, so I would press for graduation.--ShutUpNavi 17:12, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Thoroughly excellent, a perfect example of what this althist can create. Bob 17:45, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

MediFleet (1983: Doomsday)
Proposed LoN organization. Mitro 18:44, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone who objects to graduating this and marking it as a stub? Mitro 14:40, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to how the Celtic Alliance surrendering control of the medical institutions becomes surrender of political control to the United Nations? Louisiannan 19:39, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! Missed this one. I object on several points: Benkarnell 21:57, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The League of Nations' medical arm is the International Red Cross, re-established just last March with its headquarters in Geneva.  It may be that MediFleet is an older organization, recently put under League control and not yet merged with the Red Cross (probably a good thing, since the Red Cross so far has mostly lacked things like actual doctors and ambulances and hospitals - it's all in the works).
 * 2) The group just recently rejected the idea of the Celtic Alliance turning control of itself over to the League of Nations, because it made no sense.  No nation ever has or ever would willingly relinquish its own self-government, certainly not to an international body run by who-knows-what country next.
 * 3) Even the idea of turning all hospitals in the country over to the LoN makes no sense.  Where's the money going to come from?  And if the Celts are still going to pay for them, then what exactly are they handing over?  Just decision making power?  Why would they do that?
 * 4) The UN/LoN administers territories and hospitals in places where the normal authorities cannot do so.  The C.E., one of the world's wealthier and more successful countries, is a very odd choice for LoN takeover.
 * Alright it doesn't seem people are acceptable about the idea. Unless Mjdoch or someone else makes some of the suggested changes I will mark this as obsolete.  Mitro 23:56, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the idea of a Celtic-based MediFleet is a good one. It's just that this page was written (I think) when Mjdoch was still considering the idea of ceing C.A. sovreignty to the League of Nations.  Now that this idea was rejected, the idea of MediFleet has to be re-worked given what we know.  It may be that the C.A. has turned MediFleet over to the LoN.  Benkarnell 00:55, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the article. What do you think? Mitro 02:27, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is fine; it's kind of like how the WCRB was originally and ANZC institution and was transferred to the LoN. However some expansion might be wanted because this article has barely any content. --DarthEinstein 02:34, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * I know its small but the idea was not mine originally. Mitro 02:42, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it, but I'd like to hear from Mjdoch since he's the creator. Benkarnell 03:47, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Northumbria (1983: Doomsday)
a nieghbour kingdom that i've written to link into Kingdom of Cleveland (1983: Doomsday) page, currently a work in progress--Smoggy80 11:37, October 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * I love the idea of the Lord Lieutenant coming to the aid of his people as the Kingdom collapses - makes for a great story, one of many compelling ones to come out of this ATL. And the new kingdom couldn't ask for a better royal seat!  A couple of minor points: first, that is a lot of bombs!  How could anything survive that's caught between themm?  Do you think their number should be reduced?  I'm not sure; it may be that the towns are far enough away that there's a "safe zone" around Alnwick that can form the nuvleus of the kingdom.  Second, according to Wikipedia, Lord Hugh died in 1988 anyway; if he got premature radiation-induced cancer, that might have to move forward in time.  Third, will a royal marriage really result in the unification of the two kingdoms?  That feels so medieval - but then, this is a post-apocalyptic world.  But while Northumberland feels very much like a medieval kingdom, formed by the personal initiative and influence of the King, Cleveland feels much more modern and constitutional.  The Queen, after all, was more-or-less invited to the throne, wasn't she?  The country of Cleveland itself seems to have been formed by the people rather than y one powerful person.


 * Then again, they might be looking to unite anyhow, and the marriage just provides a way to seal the deal. Oh - did Cleveland and Northumbria design their flags independently?  They're very similar (both being based on the same old banner); has this caused confusion?  Was it deliberate?


 * Finally, it appears that the Percy family are Dukes, not Earls, of Northumberland.


 * I think that Henry is the perfect sort of person to declare the re-creation of Northumbria. From what little I just read about him, he seemed like a flamboyant, unpredictable sort of peer, just the type to resurrect medieval Saxon imagery.


 * Final question: what is the relationship of the two kingdoms to the Celtic Alliance?   The CA might very well see them the way Canada sees Saguenay, an inconvenient local power interfering with their resettlement of the country.


 * Wes hal! Benkarnell 00:54, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

War in the Mediterranean!
Discussion moved to Talk:Second Sicily War (1983: Doomsday). Benkarnell 19:56, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

New Situation for Mexico

 * Just a proposal. Chiapas and the Yucatan states fight for independence as free states, continuing to the present-day. They are armed by Cuba and a now Communist Guatamala, which has gone on to take over El Salvador and Belize. The insurgents have control over large parts of their claimed territory, but are largely unrecognized internationally (a situation similar to the conflict in Georgia). Everything else is as OTL, with the new district capital, and the jointly controlled Mexican-LoN Northern states. I have never done so much outlining in my life......Lahbas 22:18, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Chiapas and Yucatan controlling Belize would put them into conflict with the East Caribbean Federation.--BrianD 22:21, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah Belize is a part of the ECF according to canon. Mitro 23:21, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Interesting; a nation embracing a political ideaology that doomed the world. Not that I'm saying this is impossible, or implausible, or deplorable, just interesting. I'll be watching the debate and upgrading into canon. Mr.Xeight 22:29, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * By their view, it could be Capitalism that doomed the world, or just the conflict between them. --DarthEinstein 22:35, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * DarthEinstein's right. Though we know that the apocalypse was triggered by a Soviet mistake, for all the Cubans and insurgents know, it was Washington that launched the first missiles. I don't think they would hesitate to tell their people that, either. --BrianD 22:38, October 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * I gave Belize to Guatamala only because they historically have territorial claims to the territory. At the same time, I don't think that by the time Guatamala would invade, by the early 90's, there would be an international community to stop them. (The LoN would not exist until I believe 2008, and the ECF military I would think to be incapable of a counter-invasion). Lahbas 00:05, October 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * When I put the map together I imagined Guat. occupying parts of inland Belize, while the proper Belizean government is part of the ECF and controls most of the coast. We can adjust borders and give most of Belize to Guatemala, though, without disrupting canon, as long as Belize at least keeps a rump state on the coast, presumably centered on Belize City.  Benkarnell 11:41, October 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * I just re-read the Mexico article, and any new states in southern Mexico will have to be harmonized with it. The far-right México Primero party, now illegal, was calling for Mexico to occupy Central America as late as last spring.  This doesn't fit with the proposal, which assumes a weak Mexico and a strong Guatemala.  I think we can interpret Yucatan and Chiapas as somewhat lawless, maybe filled with some rebels from the south, but not as full-blown Guatemalan puppets.


 * [edit] Also, League of Nations control in the northern states is a proposal that the Mexican government has made. I doubt the League has the resources to intervene in so large an area.  It's basically still  brand new organization, after all.  Benkarnell 02:40, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

What if after Doomsday the Mexicans consolidated control over the more central territories, leaving the inhabited outer territories to their own machinations. --Yankovic270 02:52, October 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * There can't be a "what if" about it. What's there is there, especially since Guinesscap, the caretaker for Mexico, is more-or-less inactive right now.  We have to be extra careful not to mess up his pages with material that contradicts what he wrote.  And what's written is: "May 10, 1987 - The influx of Central American refugees and indigenous uprisings in Yucatán and Chiapas force president de la Madrid to federalize the the five southern border states of Chiapas, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatán and Quintana Roo. These five states are dissolved and made into two federal territories, Istmo-Chiapas and Yucatán. Most of the Mexican Armed Forces are stationed here." And this year, "Right-wing extremists use the situation [food riots] to call for an end to immigration and closing the borders at Istmo-Chiapas and Yucatán. The "México Primero" party is formed with dozens of Catholic defectors from the PAN already in congress. They demand the annexation of the Central American states, the creation of reservations for all "Indian insurgents" and for Catholicism to be made the official religion."
 * IMO that _does_ leave room for guerrilla groups that control pieces of territory, maybe even sponsored by Guatemala. But Mexico has to have at least a good deal of control over things like border checks.  How about making the Yucatan and Chiapas rebels something like the Taliban in Afghanistan right now - in control of some out-of-the-way parts of the country, able to cause a lot of trouble, and able to sneak back and forth across the border; but when you get down to it, not in any state to actually govern the territory they claim. Just an idea - it's one way to fuse the ideas together. Benkarnell 04:20, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. Question - how strong, or weak, IS Mexico?--BrianD 05:14, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we know exactly. Benkarnell 14:05, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Question: I want to begin developing a storyline for West Texas and Mexico to get back on good terms with one another. Is there anything I need to watch out for regarding Mexico? And, would it be possible for George W. Bush to play a role to bring that peace, perhaps by being a leader amongst the American interests in Mexico (who know of W's pre-DD association with Conaway and would like to see restored relations with West Texas)? --BrianD 20:38, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that idea a lot! I'll try and get past my personal feelings about W and encourage him to rehabilitate his image in this alternate dimension ;-).  Benkarnell 14:05, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

in 1983, belize was protected by a British military force, British Forces Belize (BFB). the BFB had a flight of 4 Harrier jump-jets raiper SAMs and about 1500 troops. --HAD 11:07, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Albania
Enver Hoxha ordered the construction of some 750,000 bunkers (for a population of 3 million), in the OTL has been viewed as an example of dictatorial eccentricity but in the ATL may mean the saving of many lives. Coupled with the fact that there was only a nuclear explosion in Tirana, the Albanian capital, and that the Albanian territory is very mountainous, which it would preserve enough of nuclear contamination. The backwardness of the country would not be an obstacle in the post-nuclear world, however the population was accustomed to decades of famine and poverty. Ethnic persecution in neighboring Yugoslavia and its eventual successor, the South Slavic Union would involve a large influx of refugees from Kosovo and Macedonia to replace the population died. Finally the power vacuum in northern Greece allow Albanian expansion in this area Tristanbreiker 17:04, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

You have it the other way around. The island of Kerkyra (called "Corfu" in English) has actually been highly interactive on the Albanian coast, not so much colonizing so much as banding together with any surviving refugees, having tiny settlements fly the Kerkyran flag. Mr.Xeight 01:14, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I think Yugoslavia's been more-or-less presented as an island of stability. So likely the refugees would move in the other direction, from Albania into Macedonia and Kosovo.  Although I do like the idea of a rural-based Albanian survivor state.  Maybe it could move somewhat across borders, since mainland Greece (if not the islands) was/is a great mess after DD.  Benkarnell 05:05, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Corsica
Still have not said anything about Corsica, what suggestion you more attractive?, Power vacuum?, Independent Republic?, another French rival republic of the Republique Francaise des Terres Australes?, allied Republic to the Republic of Sicily?, puppet state of the Sicilians?, puppet State of the Alpine Confederation? or none of these options...Tristanbreiker 17:57, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * What if the Corsicans have their own republic, however there are many supporters for alliance or annexation with all of those that you mentioned, leading to lots of civil unrest, and perhaps becoming a warzone in the new war with Sicily.--DarthEinstein 19:33, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * The Republique Francaise des Terres Australes definitely claims it; that's been written already. How about - Corsica is a pawn in the rivalry between the Alpines and Sicily? Each side supports a faction in a long-drawn-out proxy war in Corsica.  Benkarnell 21:57, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

I always envisioned an indepedent republic wary of the Alpinians and Sicilians, which is why I've never written anything on their involvement on the war. But a decision on the fate of Corsica would be very helpful for my Sicily War, which hasn't seen direct army-to-army fighting, and nothing bigger than spontaneous firing from ships encircling North Africa, but believe me, it's-a-comin'. Mr.Xeight 02:33, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Then Corsica is disputed territory, supporting the Sicilians one faction and the Alpine Confederation the other.Tristanbreiker 18:12, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * Knowing the Corsicans, most of them would favor just keeping the two out of the area, because they want to be independent.I'll agree to it being disputed territory, but they'll likely favor the Alpines over Sicilians because the Alpines might let them go free. Louisiannan 17:36, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Tibet
This is an independant country in the Himalayas, authored by Vladivostok. --DarthEinstein 15:55, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I am guessing that much of the PRC apparatus in Tibet was destroyed along with Lhasa - is this why the Dalai Lama was able to come back so early? Did he face opposition from PRC officials? It seems like the Tibetans made an awfully fast transition from "waiting for the PRC" to "inviting the Dalai Lama". Benkarnell 14:19, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,Tibetans want to be free even now and I think they would quickly jump at the chance to become independent. Three months isn't really that short a time to figure out that help isn't on the way,they had plenty of chances to figure out what happened to the rest of the PRC--Vladivostok 15:02, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Siberian Republic and East Turkestan
I was thinking of adding East Turkestan as a Republic in he SSR,because of Soviet historical support of East Turkestan's independence,there was no direct hit on the Chinese province of Sinkiang and because of the need to survive in a post-nuclear war world. Also,i was thinking of adding an article on the Alaskan part of Siberia,as well as making a few changes in the Siberian article,adding history,etc. --Vladivostok 06:27, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the Soviets would look to grab as much land as possible in lawless Mangolia and remnants of Japenese Islands nearby. -- MC Prank 17:30, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well for now just land in Central Asia,as you can see in the Siberian page,which is finished,mostly.--Vladivostok 19:20, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Greco-Sicillian War
With the war mentioned in the WCRB NewsHour, i though I'd start a page for it. Greco-Sicilian War‎ any ideas for the various battles, foreign reactions and other features of the war, please post here. (Is Greco right? or should i use a different word?)

--Das Taub 10:32, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's already a page for this. See Second Sicily War (1983: Doomsday). --DarthEinstein 00:34, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

I only have limited time to say this; but we really don't need two pages for the same war. I have no time to work on it, and I'm sorry.
 * Red vs. Blue, I'm so sorry I haven't responded to your nice comment. I tried two weeks ago but I had a spy-sweeper on my computer and I forgot I pressed "shutdown computer after sweep". Just as I was about to press send, the anti-virus finished, and well... I have a long, drawn out response about Greek culture in your world, and when I have time, I'd love to help!

Mr.Xeight 23:51, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow didn't even realize there were two pages. Maybe we can combine them... Mitro 02:00, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

No point really, they just reiterate the same thing about that comment I put. Mr.Xeight 02:15, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

American Survival States
I have a question concerning development of a proposed story for an American survival state. Although my focus is primarily on the Middle East, I have also been working on a possible mini-state in my area of the former US. Having read a number of thoughts and concerns expressed about so many such nations popping up in this region of the world, should I outline my idea via this page under proposals and get feedback from the editors first or should I create a proposed article page and lay out my thoughts on the discussion page? I would like to get some guidance before I move forward on the idea. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 12:39, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I would do exactly what I did with West Texas: create an article (make sure you put (1983: Doomsday) in the title, and put as the first line in the main text of the article), then list it on this page.--BrianD 22:55, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Communications and mass media
I'm interested in how mass media and communications works in the 1983:DD world, so I've started a page for it. Your input and help is greatly appreciated. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Communications_and_mass_media_%281983:_Doomsday%29 --BrianD 22:55, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read what's there. My only problem is that the REM/Internet seems to spread a bit too quickly. I would think that, though the SAC and the ANZC would be able to use it, as would countries associated with them, elsewhere it would not be available. Many people likely would not have personal computers, and large scale computer production seems unlikely outside of the SAC and ANZC. --DarthEinstein 01:13, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * I revised it to (hopefully) a more realistic scale.--BrianD 01:55, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * So from what I gathered it is in place in the SAC, ANZC, Canada, Singapore, Mexico, and the Celtic Alliance. That sounds good to me. --DarthEinstein 02:15, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. They're building an infrastructure to expand their version of the internet worldwide. The only limit is funding and public/private initiative.--BrianD 02:27, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * We've discussed the Internet before. Last May, Hellerick proposed the idea of a coordinated (mostly private) international effort to retrieve, systematize, and share information.  It would be called the International Information Preservation Project, but everyone would call it the Doomsday Library.  The idea had huge potential, but it stalled somewhere, and no page was created for it.  In the process of the discussion, we talked a lot about the Internet, so it might be helpful to read what was said: Talk:1983: Doomsday/Archive 3.
 * I also have one suggestion: when I summoned the "Alaska Broadcasting Corporation" into being (thanks for remembering!), I imagined it as Alaska's local affiliate of the ANZBC. Regarding public radio in the US (a topic I'm very interested in), NPR itself went nearly bankrupt in 1983 and had to take out an enormous loan from the CPB (see this document, especially the section "Transition Period from April 30, 1983 to October 31, 1983" - what a lucky find!).  I'd imagine that the public stations would be some of the most crucial ones in the Aftermath era, their being so community-centered, so that's impotrtant to know.  I also think that the local Alaska and Hawaii NPR stations, or their successors, would have become ANZBC affiliates upon annexation.  Benkarnell 21:13, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing about that, Ben, is that I envisioned ANZBC as a merger of the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand, all owned by their respective governments. The best I understand from Wikipedia, their OTL equivalents are much more like the BBC or CBC than PBS and NPR. But that certainly isn't set in stone, at least as I am not the author of the ANZC. --BrianD 21:44, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * The ANZC does not have any one author. I figured that after years of dictatorship, civil war, rationing, military occupation, and unrest, what was left of Hawaii's public radio station would be glad to accept state sponsorship, and the change in status that would come with that.  Same in Alaska, although the situation there remains unclear.  But "Public radio evolves into BBC-like institutions, while keeping some American-ness" seems like a good scenario to me.  Benkarnell 22:22, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy enough to fix. I could add a "Channel Two" to Alaska, accounting for a station broadcasting programming from private ANZC networks. --BrianD 23:01, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth Special Air Service Regiment (CSASR)
If anyone has the time/knowhow, would they mind creating an article for the CSASR of the ANZC (it shold be CANZ, to be correct) the guy who did the Republican Guard article seems to have a knack for this. --HAD 13:01, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

that should start the ball rolling!--HAD 15:22, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

There is currently an objection to this article being a part of canon. Please see Talk:German South West Africa (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 14:52, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

and
A South Asian nation in the Himalayas. Still in the conceptual stages. --DarthEinstein 02:57, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

I'm done the history of Bhutan. I am by no means an expert in this region at all, in this timeline or out of it, so I probably made some mistakes. All comments are welcome. --DarthEinstein 21:36, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

I've begun a Nepal page as well. Comments welcome! --DarthEinstein 16:50, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it.Makes the region seem a little less uneventful. I'm going to redo some of the history in my Tibet article proposal,to correspond to what you have written. If you have any plan on what role Tibet would play before it got involved,let me know,I'll write a few new things,see if you like the ideas.--Vladivostok 19:31, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Tibet wouldn't want to involve itself in conflicts too early. It would want to keep good relations with its neighbours in the chaotic years immediately after Doomsday. However once it has established itself solidly it would then ally itself with Bhutan. --DarthEinstein 22:31, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes to my article,trying to fit the events in with your articles as best as I could. Did you have something like that in mind?--Vladivostok 22:33, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Your changes go into quite a bit of detail about what was happening between Bhutan and Nepal before they had actually become involved, which might be out of place on the Tibet page. Perhaps a more consise account of what happened before Tibet was involved would be better. Other than that it is fine. --DarthEinstein 22:40, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah,I did use a couple of things that don't really seem to matter for Tibet. I'll redo a few lines tomorrow,leave out the parts which aren't important for Tibet,maybe add a few events. If you want the Battle of Kathmandu to have a specific date,just let me know--Vladivostok 22:46, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm a bit uncertain of the Battle of Kathmandu. I'm thinking that the final battle should be somewhere other than Kathmandu, perhaps more of a border city or even a city in Bhutan. If the Tibetans and Bhutanese won in Kathmandu, I'm not sure they would give it up. I don't know much about what other cities there are around there, so I'll have to do a bit of research to find the right city. But as for the battle itself, I think that when assigning a date we should pay attention to the climate in the area. I know that the area goes through monsoon seasons, though those might be disrupted by the climate altering effects of Doomsday. The time of the battle should be when it would be easiest to fight, so when no heavy monsoon weather is about. It's complicated, so we'll just keep it to the ambiguous "2004" for now. --DarthEinstein 23:31, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * It's always good to get information on regional wars that broke out. Why were the monarchists so much stronger in Nepal than in OTL?  Benkarnell 14:16, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought they would be more powerful because there's no USA around. Also the monarchist government had recently won a war, so that definitely increased their support. --DarthEinstein 17:01, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the bit about Kathmandu. Yes,your right,the Bhutan army would probably try to occupy them,but I don't think the Tibetans would allow that,I think they would act to propose an acceptable peace treaty after they won the war.--Vladivostok 20:38, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

New pages for specific sports
Purpose is to summarize status of each sport in the post-Doomsday world. Let me know any other sports that we need to concentrate on.--BrianD 03:58, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Baseball http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Baseball_(1983:_Doomsday)
 * American football http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/American_football_(1983:_Doomsday)
 * Football (aka soccer) http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Football_(aka_soccer)_(1983:_Doomsday)
 * Rugby (one page for rugby union and rugby league) http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Rugby_(1983:_Doomsday)
 * Football (other codes, specifically Gaelic and Aussie Rules) http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Football_(other_codes)_(1983:_Doomsday)
 * Basketball http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Basketball_(1983:_Doomsday)
 * Ice hockey http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Ice_hockey_%281983:_Doomsday%29
 * Ice Hockey. Its the major sport of Canada and Victoria, would likely have a large presence in Soviet Siberia and Nordic Union, and probably the Canadian territory of the North American Union.--Oerwinde 08:19, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hockey would be big in Superior as well. Mitro 12:42, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Page has been created.--BrianD 16:32, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

NBC TV News Broadcast
This came about through an article I am currently working on. Having looked at it, I felt it would be more logical for it to exist as a separate item. It envisions what might have been broadcast on NBC concerning the nuclear launches on the night of DDay. I have tried to keep the times realistic in conjunction with the AP/UPI reports someone else created; however some times may not agree. I figure if NORAD did not detect the launch until 8:45 PM, I couldn’t see anyone knowing right away outside of the inner circle. You figure they have to tell the president first, before he gives the okay to release the information to the US. The time I chose seemed the best. If anyone thinks I should change them, please give me your thoughts. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 02:56, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was incredible. Excellent work. Makes you feel like you were there, and it makes you feel the despair (it also reminds me of the closing scene of Countdown to Looking Glass). We can always fix the timeline, but this article needs to stay up.--BrianD 04:00, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It is nice to know I am not the only one familiar with that film. Since I can’t speak for everyone here, I remember watching such films as Special Bulletin (which ironically won the Emmy on the night in question), Looking Glass, and the Day After when they first aired and use them as inspiration when I am writing. As someone who was probably watching the Emmys that night in 1983, I can only wonder what would have gone through my mind.--Fxgentleman 04:36, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow I am glad you put this here. I was just looking on YouTube when I came across this. It’s an emergency broadcast system message warning people about a nuclear attack on New York. Not sure how authentic it is but it’s perfect for the timeline.--ShutUpNavi 15:43, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

International Rugby Board
Another day, another page: this one is for the 1983:DD version of the sanctioning body of the sport of rugby union. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/International_Rugby_Board_%281983:_Doomsday%29 --BrianD 18:14, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Portland, Tennessee
Proposal for survivor community north of Nashville, close to the Tennessee-Kentucky border. I'm going to develop it and hang onto this one for awhile, and tie it in to the WCRB article I've started.--BrianD 04:05, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Portland,_Tennessee_%281983:_Doomsday%29 --BrianD 17:21, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Nicaragua and Costa Rica
I was thinking of expanding the Costa Rican civil war,because it hasn't been expanded on recently and I'd also include a page on Nicaragua in the following week. I think it is time for the Soviet Bloc to meddle into foreign affairs,supplying the Nicaraguans and trying to unite the Sandinistans in their war in Costa Rica. I'd also like to write about other countries in the region,but I'll wait until there is a consensus on what to do about Guatemala and Yucatan.--Vladivostok 16:22, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

The Return of Neuses Deutschland!!!!
Since I have pretty much finished my other nations, I have decided to attempt to0 make my greatest failure much more plausible. Since I made the Republic of Lincoln more easy to swallow, I realized I could make New Germany plausible. Of course the setting has got to change. I am going to re-place it in the German-settled parts of Argentina, and it is a nation of the native-born Germans, not immigrants from Germany itself. The name comes from the South American Germans wanting to showties with the "old country", but not seem like no more than a colony. --Yankovic270 20:45, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * This could be interesting. Perhaps it could be like Israel, where it is declared a haven for Germans and German refugees and survivors from around the world could settle there over the years. --Oerwinde 21:43, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

I changed the location of New Germany to Iowa because of its German-American population, and its seemingly having survived intact and impact-free. And besides, South America's nations (even though the articles have a dissapointing lack of content) have borders hthat are pretty much set in stone. --Yankovic270 22:50, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

And who is a proper candidate for the current Neu Deutsch Chamcellor? I'm holding out for a local politician who is of German descent. --Yankovic270 23:47, October 31, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with Benkarnell, who was trying to make the point that starting a New Germany inside Argentina was as unrealistic as doing so inside the U.S. Why would anyone from Iowa, realistically, decide to form a continuation of Germany inside the United States? Their land was destroyed by Communists, they're struggling to survive, and that motivates them to renounce their American heritage and decide to form a New German Republic? Their grandparents may have moved over from Germany, but their loyalties are to America. Most 19th- and 20th-century immigrants to America kept ties to their country of origin but considered themselves Americans first and foremost (as opposed to French, Germans, Irish, etc. living in a foreign land) and assimilated into American culture. --BrianD 02:31, November 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Take this from a virtual ethnic German: after a few generations people just don't identify with the country of origin of their ancestors any more. I guess this effect will only be stronger still when they move to some place from where you cannot actually walk to the German border. And now I'm not even mentioning greater cultural and linguistic differences yet and the fact that America has traditionally had, and still has, a society that is a lot more assimilative. Germany fading into the night is seriously going to be the least of the German-Americans concerns in a post-DD environment (This regardless of the fact that Germany does not in fact fade into the night in this timeline). In short, I too am with Ben and Brian on this. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:32, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ben, Brian and Karsten as well. Post-DD won't inspire ethnic Germans in the US to form their own Neo Germany.  The melting pot aspect of the country would mean that many of these Neo Germans would have non-German ancestries mixed in their background.  Too many generations have passed by in Iowa that many ethnic Germans would see themselves as Americans which just some hard to pronounce names and a few unique recipes they share with guests.
 * Also I'm not sure how intact Iowa is after a nuclear war. The instability after the war would probably just leave tiny survivor states on the par of San Juan, most likely centered around Lee, Emmet and Palo Alto counties.  Mitro 00:04, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Then what if instead of them controlling the entire state, they are one of the survivor states. I could see them controlling a sizable chunk of the state. Tell me, where is the highest concentration of ethnic Germans in the state? And who should i choose as the New German Chancellor? --Yankovic270 17:15, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * You are still ignoring one of the main points people are arguing: that its is implausible that German-Americans in Iowa are going to recreate Germany post-Doomsday. Of the original German immigrants who came to Iowa, most would be either dead or so old that the aftermath of Doomsday would mean an early death.  There is a large population of ethnic Germans where I live, but I doubt they would slip on some jackboots just because of a nuclear war.  I don't think anyone even knows how to speak German.  According to Wikipedia, only 1.5 million Americans can speak German, out of a nation of 300 million.  Even Iowa doesn't have the largest concentration of Germans in the US, North Dakota and Wisconsin do.  But those people are German-Americans, people who have been born in the US, who have learned English (which is probably the only language they know) and know only American culture.  Though influenced by their German heritage that doesn't make them less American and more German.  Mitro 17:38, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Mitro, you took the words out of my mouth. We appreciate your fervor, Yankovic, and your desire to contribute, but please remember that this is collaborative and striving for a certain level of "reality." Louisiannan 17:41, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mitro. But consider that we now have four German speaking nations in this TL already: Prussia, North Germany, the Alpine Confed, and German Southwest Africa. We definitly have no shortage Germans, considering how nuked it was. --DarthEinstein 18:15, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the idea of a re-created Germany in Iowa is highly implausible I do however believe there is room for a survivor nation within the state of Iowa--GOPZACK 20:50, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

International Ice Hockey Federation
New page created for ice hockey's governing body in this timeline. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/International_Ice_Hockey_Federation_%281983:_Doomsday%29 --BrianD 04:09, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * How does this relate to the individual countries' hockey leagues, such as the CHL or the VHL? --DarthEinstein 16:25, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Very little. The purpose of the IIHF, in this timeline, is to regulate international competitions and help regrow the sport globally, not to dictate how domestic competitions are governed.--BrianD 16:48, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

WCRB expedition into the southern U.S.
I've begun a page that will hopefully give some idea as to what is going on in the region, while allowing for editors to create future articles. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/2009_WCRB_report_on_the_southern_United_States_%281983:_Doomday%29 In a nutshell:
 * there were survivors, especially on the periphery (Texas, Kentucky, West Virginia).
 * The deep South apparently was hammered by racial violence and the aftereffects from radiation.
 * Every state listed in the article was explored, but not every part of each state was. For example, in Texas, West Texas was known to the WCRB, and explorers also took the time to investigate the ruins of Galveston and Corpus Christi.
 * Florida is the most explored area, but even the Cubans haven't explored the entire state.
 * Apparently there were dozens of micro-nations in the region at various times, including five black nationalist nations and no less than eight manifestations of the Confederate States of America (usually one, two or a few towns from neighboring states claiming their entire states, or the entire South, as their territory).
 * Some of the nations had political and military power to back up their claims, but many of the states were in name only.
 * Cuba is the only country that had independently gone on expeditions in the region, up through Florida into central Georgia. West Texas is now exploring central and eastern portions of the former state of Texas (and indeed has claimed the entire state as its own).
 * Despite Cuban protests, in the areas NOT a part of canon or current proposals, the WCRB sent either non-Cuban scouts (including former Americans from Mexico) or, in the Florida/Georgia area, non-Cubans were assigned with Cubans.
 * The reason for this was that the WCRB thought that locals would view Cubans as Soviet or Communist invaders continuing the war. It was thought that American, Mexican, UAR and Brazilian scouts would be better received.
 * Much evidence regarding the fate of surviving cities and towns was found, but only 19 surviving communities were discovered. (I'm not sure yet where all they're going to be.)
 * One of those communities, Portland, Tennessee, has an article. Contact was made with it, and another in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. The other 17 communities were observed only, as WCRB scouts had been instructed to be cautious.
 * One community in South Carolina seemed to be predominantly black, with some white and Hispanic slaves; another, in Arkansas, was white-dominated, including Klansmen and black slaves. Scouts deemed both situations to be unsafe for contact, and it is thought that the scouts were able to get away unnoticed.
 * The standard of living in each surviving community outside of Florida seems to be 19th century.
 * Cuba got to lead the expedition into the South (and one of its officials as the head of the project), but the LoN, after pressure from Mexico and Puerto Rico, more or less took oversight of the project out of Cuban hands and into its own.
 * After some diplomatic "discussion", and some pressure from certain Cuban officials to explore the entire region for "peaceful" purposes, Cuba finally relented, agreeing to an actual lesser role in the project.--BrianD 17:17, November 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * I kind of like the idea of Cuba already having a very established economic presence, at least in the Gulf Coast and/or Georgia. For many years, Cuban traders may have been those people's only reliable source of industrial goods.  It would make for an interesting reversal of the world order heretofore - one of the main themes of this TL.  (And one we sometimes neglect, since we've focused so many times on the few survivors of the USA and Western Europe and the influence they still exert.)  In this way, I'd think that Cuba would be able to present itself as the country best-equipped to carry out League of Nations-sponsored activities in the region, kind of like how Greece maintains the Suez region in the name of the League.  Benkarnell 00:50, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea. The key for that to happen is for the Cubans to gain a measure of trust (which they apparently did in Florida and Georgia); perhaps they did so partly by blaming the war on the Russians (and explaining away Siberia as another country separate from the 'warmongers'). Also, is Cuba's economy in this TL like communist China's in ours?--BrianD 01:40, November 2, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. And don't think I'm trying to force my ideas on you, because I'm not.  I had just liked the idea, hinted at in the Cuba page, that Cubans were becoming economically dominant in the former Deep South.  I don't think trust would be an issue - with all society shattered & destroyed, I think many Southerners would welcome anyone offering generous trade terms.  And this would be a very recent phenomenon, since Cuba itself was very unstable until the mid 90s.  So maybe Cuba is just beginning its ascendancy in the region, and isn't yet strong enough to dictate anything to the LoN.  But Greece is similar - it was also a nuclear target and is only just recovering and making its influence felt in surrounding coast lands.  I guess I kind of feel that we need some "reverse colonialism" to balance the regular colonialism we're seing in North (and South) Africa. So don't take my ideas too seriously, I suppose. Benkarnell 13:24, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is very much in flux anyway, but all ideas are appreciated! I'm going to use the old map as a guide in regards to Cuban influence. And assume that somehow, Cuba and whomever locals remained were able to come to some sort of agreement: U.S. resources in exchange for help, with the alternatives being Cuba going in and killing everyone (and facing a potential war with an American-influenced Mexico), or facing a guerrilla-type scenario that would render any benefits to Cuba useless. I'm also going to establish Mexico as having some kind of presence and oversight over Cuban affairs in the Georgia/Florida region, which up to now has been considered territory "of Cuban influence" due to a total absence of local government. I also want to establish that in exchange for goods from the U.S., that Cuba (and Mexico, with the 'encouragement' of the LoN) have gone in at least to the Everglades and restored electricity. --BrianD 15:19, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Since this deals with the southern US, I wanted to throw out a thought I have been contemplating. What would have happened to the off shore oil/gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico belonging to US companies? Were they taken over by another nation, i.e. Mexico; were they destroyed on Doomsday, and if so, why about the resulting pollution it would have caused; or did they band together in some sort of micronation? As strange as the last thought may sound, I was thinking back to Sealand, an offshore British naval fort, which became an independent country back in 1967. It’s plausible some of the crews could have used boats to move families from places like Morgan City, Louisiana to the platforms to wait out the chaos. Of course the big problem would be where to get food and fresh water. Plus they would have to defend the platforms and there would be the question of how much EMP damage was sustained on Doomsday. --Fxgentleman 18:20, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * You raise a great point, Fxgentleman; I would think the Cubans and Mexicans have already laid claim on the oil platforms. But your idea regarding the people on the platforms deserves consideration. As far as them being targets, every list of targets I have ever seen never included oil rigs. Most reading I've done on the subject suggested that the Soviets expected to survive, and win, WWIII. One would think the Russians would have wanted to disable American capability to fight and defend itself, then come in (if possible) at some point and take any resources it could, not destroy them all.--BrianD 18:48, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Since both Cuba and Mexico claim the oil platforms, I could see both of them recognizing whatever micronation on them to keep them out of the other's hands. Hypothetically speaking, what would they call this micronation? I definately can see it be rich from oil exports. --Yankovic270 17:26, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be named after the person who founded it, though what his (or her) name would be I don't know. Or they might decide to name their country after a US president. Or they might have a boring official name such as the "Republic of the Gulf" or something. --DarthEinstein 17:40, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

The Republic of Roosevelt? The Republic of Washington? The Republic of Jefferson? Do any of these names sound good to you? --Yankovic270 19:32, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Name it after the company that had ownership over most of the platforms of the time. It makes more sense that way, and could at least serve for a temporary name. Tha major problem however would be the hurricane seasons, since they are known could occasionaly cause severe damage to the platforms, and in TTL there is no effective way to repair them. IF there are any that are mobile, as I have heard might have existed. They likely would link them together into a giant floating island in order to prevent this, while also acting as the "capital". Lahbas 20:22, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

How did we get to people establishing entire countries on oil platforms? People might stay there for a time, but permanently? If anything, they would have abandoned the platforms after a period of time and taken their chances on shore. Anyway, if anyone stayed on those things and survived, by 2009 some nation would have cut a deal with them: we get you off this platform onto dry land where you can start a life, and we get the platform and rights to drill for oil.--BrianD 20:59, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

I'll submit this idea to the entire community regarding the oil in the Gulf of Mexico: there may have been survivors who evacuated to the platforms on DD, then went south to safer lands after it was clear that America had become a wasteland and unsafe to return to. By 2009, Cuba, Mexico, the East Caribbean Federation and the League of Nations are haggling over who has the rights to the oil, but all agree they're not recognizing any wingnuts living on the platforms who claim themselves as the "Kingdom of the Gulf" with sovereign control over the region and its resources. This is alternate history, not Waterworld.--BrianD 21:13, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * There were no movable platforms in the Gulf at the time, which previously I thought there were. They had been in developement at the time, and only two existed, both in the North Sea. I can imagine them acting as pirate vessels, though eventually being abandoned or sunk due to the actions of either nations or nature. Also, many of the platforms in the Gulf would collapse at this time, due to disrepair, the lack of proper materials from the mainland, etc. Most would be abandoned during the first year, while those few where the population could de-salt the water would probably maintain their presence for a longer period. Still, only those near the coast would probably remain populated, and would have fallen under government control. As a result, I think that only those two I mentioned in the North Sea would likely remain removed from national government control, or at least maintain independence. Lahbas 22:51, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Article suggests a survivor state on the Central California coast. No offense to the author but I do not find this nation to be plausible as is. There is near 1 million people living in this nation and I don't think post-Doomsday California could support such a population. Mitro 20:27, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Other than a simple population reduction I believe this idea is fine. No matter how hard hit an area is, there will allways be survivors. It's simply human nature. --Yankovic270 20:32, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there would be survivors. Maybe 20,000-30,000 made up into nomadic tribes that were in constant war over resources. There would be no stable government, if there was one, the land would no longer have been arable, and the desert for all purposes would expand west because of this. Lahbas 22:58, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Jim Douglas interview
Working on transcript now. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/ANZBC_interview_with_Vermont_President_Jim_Douglas_in_October_2009_%281983:_Doomsday%29 --BrianD 22:18, November 4, 2009 (UTC)