Talk:1983: Doomsday

'''Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.''' Archive 1 Archive 2

NEW WORLD MAP: ALL NEW ALL NEW


a bit propaganda :) our new world map .. to keep uo motivation

look at the files talkpage to discuss things :)

no words needed :) --Xi&#39;Reney 07:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)CHeers


 * great map,--Fero 18:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC) now some points to next edition:


 * I think South American Confederation is not a nation, is just a "defence -comerce-humanitarian" alliance (is not sow great and deep like OTL European Union, loock more like NAFTA), and nations involves in there must be paint in diferent colors, like surviving NATO - State are not in the same color, with just push the SAC flag in there you say clear they are involv in SAC. --Fero 18:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * about timeline, we have too much about some nuked almost devasted european countries but there are almost nothing about African and Asian unattacked countries. --Fero 18:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What/why is the paint Teritory? Siberia and Canada have some real countrol about all that colored space? not more not minus, Canada not take north of USA? in aniway? specialy unclear status when they have not a start to say that is the capital city--Fero 18:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * next time say "i and doing a new version of world map, what you think i must add or fix from old version?"--Fero 18:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I like it too. I love that we're getting so much use out of the flags - they've become one of the visual trademarks of the timeline. Here are my nitpicking suggestions. Benkarnell 21:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that something should show the difference between territory a country claims and territory it controls. For claims, I'd suggest the stripe pattern used in Mexico.  This is most apparent in Canada and Siberia, whose governments likely control territories barely 1/8 as large as they claim, but also shows in Spain, Britain, and Scandinavia.
 * Guyana and Suriname should be one country. French Guiana should be striped Guyana and France.
 * Maybe add the names of the small island countries; put the names and flags in the spot of ocean where the islands would belong. Countries like Tahiti and Tonga are more important than ever in this world.
 * Agree that South America should show more than one shade of green for the individual, independent member states. You could maybe show the same thing with the Euro-Atlantic allies, perhaps coloring them in different shades of red.


 * Thanks for the ideas... very good points in it!

@Fero: Sorry for not asking you guys before doing it, was already worrying about it...But waiting until all responses then I would have missed the unique oppurtunity to use MS Visio for to make the world map for 2 days, and won't get it again before aprox. May as I have been travelling though New Zealand since October (and will stay until April) without a reasonable working PC...so i took the chance and made the best out of it...sorry for any inconvenience as I am not trying to dictate things regarding the TL without speaking to the fellow WCRB guys first!

@Ben: Thank you, too. The problem with displaying area controlled/claimed etc is that it take s so much time to edit every single shape in teh world map...:( but next edition will get this fixed.... Keep on throwing in, TY! --Xi&#39;Reney 23:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

UAR
What about the UAR I don' see it on this map.??????????--Emanresu11 22:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * XiReney and I pointed out several inconsistencies at Talk:United American Republic (1983: Doomsday). What you've written goes way against a lot of previously written material: the Municipal States of the Pacific were one of XiReney's first creations when he adopted this timeline.  Several of the people the page mentions are most assuredly dead.  And it goes against the general description of the interior of the USA as "medieval."  As we point out at that other talk page, it certainly doesn't have to be thrown out, but a lot does have to change before we can work it into the 1983.  So it has been left off lists and maps and so forth until we can get everything sorted out.  Benkarnell 00:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan
Have begun developing the country page for Pakistan--Exvoxmachina 01:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rearrangement
I think I will try rearranging the content on this page to draw more attention to the Editorial Guidelines. Several new pages have been created lately by people who didn't read them first, which has caused Pain and Suffering in various amounts. Benkarnell 16:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * very nice Ben!! good new layout! and thanks for all thework in the last weeks...! I will not have really much internet access until next month,so I won't be able to do much for the rearrangement as I intended.


 * But as i am indeed travelling to Tonga next month I will try to do some on-site research for the LoN-seat,live locations, and so on. so a detailed Tonga (1983: Doomsday) report and profile will follow upon my return.

But then I get into reall getting order into the TL!! cheers --Xi&#39;Reney 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rhodesia?
Most people seem to have missed Rhodesia when a new user created it last month. Some aspects of it seem toreally conflict with the Celtic Alliance, and in general it doesn't sseem to address the presence of the black majority in the region. The writer didn't respond to a question on the article talk page, so I have left a message on the user page. But what are the opinions here on the country? Benkarnell 16:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

re Rhodesia
we could imagine Rhodesia never became independent in the 1983: Doomsday and Because of its location it was unafected by WW3 so it should stay Owen1983 21:10 18 March 2009


 * Oh, I think it should stay, definitely. The war would have spared it, and perhaps delayed the establishment of democracy.  It's a few details, like Margaret Thatcher escaping to Africa, that conflict with Celtic ALliance material.  Benkarnell 01:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rhodesian update
Rhodesia has been added to Country Profiles 1983: Doomsday the Flage and capital city are the same also I have decided that the British royal family notably Queen Elizabath survived becuse when it came clear that London would be hit by a nuke the royals fled to Rhodesa aboard the royal yacht Britannia Owen1983 29 March 2009

American states
Though the United American Republic (1983: Doomsday) article has certain flaws, I wonder even with the devastation to the United States that there might not be more areas then just the MSP that survived, especially in places around the Great Plains. Thoughts? Mitro 22:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

while the devistation that the soviets enflicted on the IS some states were spared such as Florida, Louisiana Alabama, Montana, Goargia Montana became a republic Alabama Louisian Goargaia joined Alabama then louisiana and florida to join the S.A.R Southern American Republic Owen1983 13 Abril 5:32 2009 GMT


 * I'm not so sure about the southern states, but the areas of Montana, Wyoming, and eastern Washington/Oregon have the potential of surviving better then a lot of other parts of the old US. If any government came about its likely it would be very decentralized do to size and population of the area. Mitro 22:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I made some significant changes to the Municipal States of the Pacific (1983: Doomsday) article. If anyone could look it over that would be great. Mitro 20:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that a surviving polity in the West is a good idea. It's just that the suggested UAR has seemed more large, well organized, and stable than I'd expect, considering the feel of the Timeline so far.  Benkarnell 18:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I found the UAR to be too optimistic.  Its more likely that smaller organized survivor territories exist on the continent, cut off by the devastation and shortage of replacement parts.  Here are some ideas I have been toying around with:
 * Republic of Aroostook - located in Northern Maine, this area may have survived relatively intact after the war. Though close to remnant Canada and the Atlantic coast, it may difficult to explain why they weren't discovered until now.  I'm toying with the idea that they may be under a severe anti-tech government to avoid another Doomsday.
 * Appalachia Emergency Zone - its a very rural area in the US and may have weathered the years as locals and skilled refugees worked together. Thinking of creating a "clan" structure to the government.  This may also be the place where that crashed Australian pilot ended up.
 * Free City of Quincy - looking at maps this town may have managed to survive Doomsday and have access to some land in Missouri for farming to feed its population. To be honest since my hometown was wiped out I'm hoping to find places nearby that survived.
 * North Star Republic - located around Upper Peninsula Michigan and covering other territories around there, I'm planning to structure the government based on the OTL organization that proposes this state.
 * "Western Texas" - this are probably survived relatively intact also, though I lack any ideas for now.
 * Lakota - the Sioux reservations would survive Doomsday and might be the foundation for a Native American state in the region of the Great Plains.
 * Deseret - yes its an AH cliche, but maybe a Mormon state could have been carved out of southern Utah.
 * Provisional Government of Montana - this may cover Montana and Wyoming and probably out of all the areas mentioned had the best survival rate. I'm hoping to have the expedition I mention in the MSP and Timeline articles run into these guys.


 * So what do you think? Mitro 19:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

ANZ-South American relations and the war
I just posted this on the News Page. Let me know if it fits with everybody's plans, since it involves several countries and individuals:


 * MONTEVDEO - In a rare display of solidarity, South American General Governor Íngrid Betancourt and ANZC Senior Ambassador Jonathan Hunt appeared together to speak out against the Rhodesian Kingdom's war of conquest in southern Africa. The two leaders, representing rival superpowers, appeared in a joint press conference televised live in the evening throughout the continent and, via satellite, in the ANZC as well.


 * Betancourt's strong denunciation of the war was as expected full of rhetoric decrying Rhodesia's "new imperialism", contrasting its "culture of obsolete British jingoism" with the "spirit of successful multiethnic cooperation" she described in South Africa, one of several countries invaded by the kingdom this week. Hunt's tone was less strident, appealing directly to Rhodesia "as a fellow English speaking nation, and as a fellow member of the global community" to restore sovereignty to South Africa and neighboring countries "quickly - immediately." The ANZC and Rhodesia are strong trading partners, but the outbreak of war appears to be hurting their relationship as the ANZC seeks to mend relations with its traditional rival, the South American bloc. Despite his conciliatory tone, Hunt stated that he "stand[s] by every word" spoken by Betancourt.

I see this as a complicated situation. The South Americans are naturally suspicious of Anglo expansion anywhere, and there is no doubt that Hugo Chavez and other radical-types will spin the war as one more example of the Worldwide Anglo Conspiracy. So I see the ANZC as trying to distance itself from Rhodesia as fast as possible, so as to continue fostering a better relationship with South America. Recent events like the League of Nations and the internationalization of the WCRB make it seem like ANZ is trying to reach out to other countries in general and S. America in particular.

In real life Hunt was a long-serving MP in New Zealand and High Commissioner to the UK, so he seems like a good choice for my invented post of Senior Ambassador to the South American Nations. And a universally loved, anti-corruption figure like Betancourt seems a good choice for the General Governor position, which I imagine is at least in large part ceremonial. Benkarnell 22:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

first the article is very well written and will give editors a springboard whe further develping this alt history i thaught who you used a real life politician was imaginative Owen1983 00:21 17 April 2009 (GMT)


 * Thanks! Well, you've done the same thing with politicians.  You have to for a timeline like this.  It's too late to make up totally fictional people.  Benkarnell


 * As I am leaving for Tonga tomorrow and did not and do nothave the time to review everything...I lay this Rhodesia imperialism in your hands Ben... the Senior embassador is ok, very well !


 * concerning the war-like itself... withouth in-depth view its hard to judge for me now but i would be doubtful that Rhodesia would be able to advance within 2-3 days as to conquer all... not to steamroll like this...!!!

SO please rethink that and be careful... this is NO PLACE for a !!Turtledove-Draka-like scenario!! and please no queen elizabeth surviving!! :) In two weeks ill be back to duty :) sorry for the silence. Xi&#39;Reney 06:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are my ideas for harmonizing Owen and Mumby's Rhodesia with established facts and XiReney's input:


 * 1) South Africa collapsed and was a civil war zone by 1985. Mandela was killed that year in Pretoria.  This has been part of the timeline since the beginning, even before that mystery writer copied an early version to Scribd and added some future-history elements to it.
 * 2) Some South African Anglophones did undertake a rescue mission to Britain in 1984, and did bring back some British refugees. It was not as large or as organized as implied, however, nor was it the initiative of Botha's government - the government's main concern at the time being its own survival.  I don't see them getting the Queen, but another royal or two is possible.  I can't find any evidence that Thatcher visited the Falklands in 1983, and even if she did, how would she have learned of the British survivors in Africa?
 * 3) The British refugees found South Africa to be more violent than they had expected,and were soon radicalized behind a sort of British nationalist feeling. They united with whites who had fled Zimbabwe and made their way to the coast - no douby Mugabe would have kicked them out of the country.  The heavily pro-White, pro-English Kingdom of Rhodesia was formed sometime in 1985-1990.  They adopted the orange stripey flag based on an early proposal for a British South African flag.
 * 4) Around the same time, an exhausted and harried Botha met with some surviving ANC leaders in Johannesburg to form a new Unity government built on an anti-apartheid basis. The new state has waxed and waned ever since but has never had much direct control outside the Rand area.
 * 5) A joint ANZ/SAC force captured Cape Town from a local warlord in 2006. The "RZA Provisional Government" has reached out to Rhodesia and to the South Africa government at Jo'burg, but the Rhodesians have not been interested and communication with the interior has been too difficult.
 * 6) Last week, Rhodesia attacked the South African government at Jo'burg and moved on into Botswana and Mozambique. The Rhodesians had faslely assumed that the Commonwealthers in Cape Town would support their expansion.  The attacks have proceeded at a shockingly fast rate, but it remains to be seen whether they will be able to hold onto these lands for any appreciable length of time.
 * Benkarnell

This is a map showing zones of control - not claims - in South Africa in 2008, and the Rhodesian attacks in 2009, under my proposal above. [EDIT] There are no doubt major local powers not labeled. These are the only ones known. [EDIT x2] I should specif that I'm not trying to dictate. The list above and the map here are my ideas, nothing more. It's ultimately up to the rest of you to decide what to do with them. Benkarnell 18:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I archived the page.
I decided to go ahead and archive all of the previous stuff into a new page, as this one was getting too long. If you need to see the old stuff you can find the link to it on the top page.--ShutUpNavi 18:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Unity League Flag Proposal
I propose the image I made as the Unity League's Official Flag. Mr.Xeight 19:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's weird, but I can see it actually happening in a post-Doomsday kind of world. You can actually make it by sewing together old flags - a real advantage!  But why not just use that seal in the middle for a "unity" flag?  Maybe this version is the "full" state flag, and the seal is more of a civil flag?  Benkarnell 16:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could just make Northern Cyprus' coat of arms (albeit a recolored one and 1983 changed to 1987) the UL's Flag. I mean the one I designed is too long, it doesn't look very uniform when compared to the others.

Hellanic League
the Helanic League is a hypothetical post doomsday union batween greece and turkey --Owen1983 19:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Alaska?
What's up with Alaska? It gets one mention in the Timeline, but apparently all the information that has been written on it comes from the maps: 1) its an associated state of ANZC, 2) its claimed by Siberia, and 3) four locations in it were nuked. Am I missing anything about it?  I'm considering writing an article about it. Mitro 22:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. However I plan on having the Soviet Navy invade and take over the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea coastline (towns such as Nome, Barrow, and Bethel, among a few others) sometime during the 1990's. Once the Soviets assume control they transform the region into one of there "Socialist Republics" and take over the large oil and fishing industries. This causes a lot of tention between ANZC, who says Siberia's claim on Alaska is illegal.

I'll write more about it when I go to work on the Soviet Siberia article, but it may be awile (I have a lot of other things to do first). Keeping what I said in mind you can do whatever you want with the rest of Alaska.--ShutUpNavi 23:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds cool, I will add it in when I make the article. I'll try not to go into to much detail, I'll just use what you've written here when making the history. Mitro 23:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And just for the hell of it, here is the flag for Australian Alaska. No idea how Soviet Alaska should look like though. Mitro 23:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)




 * Nice! I did some quick Wikipedia-ing, and it seems very likely that society could survive best in Southeastern Alaska.  There are no major bases there. The US Naval Forces Alaska are apparently headquartered in Juneau, but that seems like a minor force. Fairbanks, Anchorage, and some of the Aleutians are definite targets.  I wonder if the Kenai Peninsula would descend into chaos while the southeast escapes.  Benkarnell 01:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the map of nuked places in the timeline, it appears that Juneau was a target. Will that be a problem? Mitro 02:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK so I created the article: Alaska (1983: Doomsday). It is still small because I'm awaiting confirmations on the nuke strikes and more info on a Soviet invasion, but feel free to edit. Mitro 02:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If Juneau was a target, you're right... maybe the modern state is centered on the lower part of the Kenai Peninsula, south of Anchorage and all the bases? [EDIT] Scratch that.  That peninsula's smaller than I thought.  There are other cities in the southeast, and it looks like that might be the center of population after losing Anchorage, Juneau, and other bases.  Benkarnell 03:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Prizes
With the survival of the Nordic nations and royal families, probably te Nobels have continued to be given out each year. I'd imagine that given the realities of life after 1983, the Peace Prize became even more prestigious. With science declining, maybe the other prizes haven't been given out each year. Any ideas on who might be a post-83 laureate in this timeline? Peace laureates especially, but scientists and writers welcome as well! Maybe eventually we can make a separate page for them. Benkarnell

My first suggestion: GHW Bush, for his role in diffusing the Hawaiian Civil War in 1987. [EDIT] Nevermind - in 1987 I'm sure the Nordics had no idea what was happening in the Pacific. More likely that year would be whoever was responsible for getting the Greeks and Turks to form a league of unity after a millenium or so of fighting. Benkarnell 03:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Come on, NO suggestions? I'll throw some others out there: King Andrew, who did so much in the postwar period to get the former factions to cooperate.  The PM of Australia-New Zealand in 2007/8 (Keating?), since he did so much to organize the League of Nations.  Botha and whatever South African leaders came together to form the New Union of South Africa.  Benkarnell 20:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow-ups on the Unity League
I'm having a little bit of trouble with some things, I wondering if everyone could help me.
 * 1. If the Nation was founded in 1987, how long it would it take to join the European-Fringe Group and the UN?
 * 2. When would Athens, Constantinople, Ankara, and Thessaloniki be repopulated?
 * 3. I'm REALLY having trouble figuring out who should lead first. I was wondering if the UN or ANZC or some sort of non-biased, third-party nation, federation, organization etc. could decide.
 * 4. With the Unity League being a successor state to both the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Seljuks, and Ottomans, I'd like to expand its borders into other lands. Would maybe something rather simple like the UN giving The League (shorthand name used by the natives. The rest of the world might say the UL) mandate-ship over the Suez Canal Zone?Mr.Xeight 01:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. If the UL was founded in 1987, I'd expect it to be a founding member of the ADC (I think that's the name), since Greece and Turkey were both NATO nations. For some reason I had thought that the UL was a much later creation. [EDIT] Even if it was, the Atlantic Defense Community was apparently only founded in '07, and I think the UL was definitely a stable country by then, right?  So you may want to edit the ADC page to add the UL as a founding member.
 * 2. Which cities were targets? The fallout would clear after a few years, I think.  The real barrier would be money and population, both of which would be really, really small.  There might be national pride motivation in getting the ancient capitals up to speed, or at least getting some sort of population back in them and building parks and memorials.
 * 3. If the League was founded in 1987, there wasn't a new global community yet, and I believe that a lot of countries weren't even sure who else was "out there" in the world. All of Greece/Turkey's European neighbors were probably even worse off - the only outside mediators might be coming from the Middle East or North Africa, about which we know little.
 * 4. If they expand, it would be because they've built a stable system in a lawless and chaotic part of the world. I doubt many people care much about the Ottomans and the rest.  But they'd seem like natural caretakers for Suez.  But it seems more likely to me that the UL took over the canal first back in the 90s or so, and have turned it over to the LoN in the past year.
 * I'd say to work out the history from the 80s to today and see how things play out. Maybe some of these questions will answer themselves.  Benkarnell 02:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Try this idea out: The Unity League was occupying the Suez region by 2000 or so. In 2008 the League of Nations pressured them to internationalize it - Greco-Turks still run the canal, but as a League of Nations mandate, with LoN troops and diplomats having automatic free passage and all that. Benkarnell 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a perfect idea! Thanks Ben! I'd also like to ask if I can finalize the UL's "liberation" of Malta. Any objections? Mr.Xeight 23:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

UAR
The United American Republic (1983: Doomsday) either needs a lot of work or may need to be deleted. Mitro 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this page to the New United States of America --Owen1983 17:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

New people, new things
The "New Additions" list is out of date, and so is the list of members. I've been lax in adding my own contributions to the New Additions list, and I've lost track of just who is "new" - or even not so new. Can everyone not currently on the list leave a note and state their position within the WCRB? :) Benkarnell 16:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been doing some edits only recently so I guess I'm new. I'll take the North American command if no one wants it. Mitro 22:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole WCRB thing is completely non-serious. Are the California cities the main thing you've worked on? Benkarnell
 * California and Oregon, but yes though I've made minor edits here and there. Mitro 22:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

All right, I've "bump"ed this section to the bottom of the page. Here are the people that do not seem to be on the WCBR list:
 * Mitro - North American Command, Crescent City (for the MSP)
 * Guinnesscap - Mexico Command? Centroamerican Command?, Mexíca (for Mexico)
 * Mumby - Africa Command? South Africa Command?, Cape Town  (for Rhodesia, South Africa)
 * Smoggy80 - England HQ?/Subcommand/England Expeditionary Division, Middlesbrough (for Cleveland)
 * Mr.Xeight - Mediterranean Command, Istanbul (for the Unity League)
 * Exvoxmachina - Asia Command? South Asia Command?, Bela  (for Pakistan)
 * Hellerick - Vexilology office, Canberra or Aukland (for the ANZC flag)
 * Owen1983 - What's your area of focus?
 * Loughery111 - Rocky Mountains Subcommand/Expeditionary Division, Billings(?) (for the NUSA)

If your name is missing, or if you think your WCRB post is inaccurate, please chime in now. Benkarnell 20:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I like mine. Mitro 14:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you've been the only one to respond. I'll just put this list on the page.
 * I think Southern Africa Command would sound better. Mumby


 * Don't forget me! I'm working on France/French Related things and Utah! --Louisiannan 16:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)