Alternative History
Register
Advertisement
1983 Doomsday's logo
This is the main discussion page for the 1983: Doomsday timeline.
As you can see, it's very big and very active. Please do the following things when posting here.
  • To introduce a new topic, create a new sub-section in the appropriate part of this page. (Don't use the "Add Topic" button.)
  • Sign and timestamp your comments on this talk page: ~~~~
  • Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

Old Discussion Archives: Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Archived Proposals: Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31

GENERAL DISCUSSION[]

The following is for general discussion to improve the TL that does not involve article proposals. It's divided into sections for easier navigation.

Countries/Regions/Politics[]

Archives: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 | Page 10

Slightly illogical details in the Caucasus[]

On the map on Ossetia's wiki page, it controls part of Ingushetia. This is very unlikely as there are historical ethnic tensions between Ossetians and Ingush, which broke out into a war in 1995.

Also, it doesn't seem logical that Kalmykia controls northern Dagestan. Unlike in Astrakhan, where there is no political authority and it makes sense that Kalmykia would expand in that region, there is very much a political authority in Dagestan. Besides, on the actual Kalmykia wiki page, the map doesn't display Kalmykia controlling northern Dagestan. But there may be some old lore behind this. What do you think though? Trolligi (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Forgotten Unification of Tennessee[]

This is another nation that should have had a unified nation-state profile by now. In the old guard's defense, LG's map showed it as such, but the page never panned out for obvious reasons. Perhaps this would be another page worth making. Arstar (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Monarchy for ANZAC[]

This is an idea in which Princess Elizabeth of South Africa becomes Monarch of Austria and New Zealand. 62%GB

I'm personally against it just because I find it more interesting without that, and I feel that the royals as figures have been emphasized quite enough already. But I'm not the only voice that matters and it's only a personal preference. I guess I will ask, what will have happened to make people there interested in restoring the monarchy after so long? What causes the change? False Dmitri (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The reason for the return of the monarchy could be like a referendum is held with in the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand and they choose Princess Elizabeth of South Africa to be their new queen. 62%GB

I mean, what caused there to be support for it? For organizing and then passing a vote. False Dmitri (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Since it’s been 40 years after Doomsday began and with Governor-General being sorta like a regent both the Government and People both feel with a much more calmer situation then before that they should restore or in this case find a suitable candidate for the throne sorta like Hungary did with Miklós Horthy. 62%GB

I guess I don't see what political forces would manage to pull that off. I would bet that New Zealand has a lot of people who would be happy to see a monarch back in place, though I don't know if there would be a majority in a vote. In Australia, I don't think that such a referendum would pass. False Dmitri (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Argentina[]

After speaking with user Katholico, he has given me permission to make edits to the Argentine lore written by him. My first addition was to add details to the list of presidents, but I will probably add more stuff later.

Meeting between Andrew and Anne[]

For the 2010 Tour of Britain is it possible for it to go a bit differently with Andrew's staff instead suggesting a different palace and with Canada and Britain making Andrew King with Cleveland ceasing to exist? 62%GB

The story of that meeting has been newly elaborated with all the gaffes and stumbles. The original was extremely heroic and it was extremely off-putting from an OTL perspective, making a hero out of this exploiter of teen girls. What in particular are you wanting to do differently? And what's the connection to Canada and Cleveland? (Cleveland wouldn't merge with Northumberland for several more years.) False Dmitri (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey thanks for the input 63 but unfortunately i think the time to reinstate monarchs in the commonwealth would have long passed by the 2010's. Anne and Andrew are both diametrically opposed in the sentiments of monarchy and its reach in the timeline. Anne is close to home, resistant to the anointed power of the monarch and wants to be a working public figure more than a symbolic one. Andrew is very of the old guard, steeped in arrogance and elitism afforded to him only by the death of his brothers. Anne being in an area where work is treasured highly is what determines her rule over Cleveland, and even then the monarchy doesn't truly hit its stride in Cleveland until Zara is coronated. Canada itself has survived without a monarch and even a governor general for 30 years by 2010, similarly with AUZ and NZL. These far flung places are just too out of the grasp of a monarchy who can barely sway the entirety of the island of Britain to their cause, nor by the timeline would they wish too. The plan to impose King Andrew on the people of Britain backfired spectacularly, and in his death his son is even further from the throne. I doubt the Canadians or Australians/New Zealanders would wish for the monarch to be reinstated in this climate. In terms of the Canadian survivor states, the prairies and west are fiercely independent so the monarchy wouldn't swing there. The maritime Canada is tough and battle hardened, I don't think a king is high up their agenda. If there was to be some monarch in north America, it would need to be fully justified and interwoven into the regions history post DD which as it stands does not exists nor is there appetite to make it so. I hope this helps explain away my thoughts on reinstating the monarchy here, but if there is anything else let me know! Trainor90 (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Okay thanks I think much earlier I was asking if it was possible for Princess Elizabeth of South Africa to be the Queen for Australia and New Zealand being that the people of the nation and government both fell that since its been 40 years since Doomsday that maybe they should pick the candidate who is most importantly enough not a clament to either of the rival factions or has no chance to become monarch. User:62%GB (talk) 12:28, 12 November (UTC)

LoN in Cape Town[]

Right now the LoN headquarters moves to Cape Town in 2015. It's a perfect spot for it, but it feels like too quick a turnaround from its era of civil war. I'd like to move it forward to 2018, with the Hall of Peace opening in 2020. False Dmitri (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I still feel like that is a really accelerated timeline. Cape Town was liberated in 2006 and likely was devastated in the fighting. Even with financial support and reconstruction by the CANZ and SAC, I doubt the city will be able to host the LoN in any significant capacity until at least the 2020’s.

Daeseunglim (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Kyrgy Soviet Socialist Republic[]

On the world map there is a gap between Kazakhstan and Uyghurstan. I cross checked to a world map and thatnis eastern Kyrgystan. With no nations being marked there, I think it is possible the USSR has annexed this as a the Kyrgy SSR by the 2020’s; even with their focus in former China.

Daeseunglim (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Daes you are correct in pointing out that the USSR already controls a slice of Kyrgyzstan. The page just has to be written. Arstar (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Graphics / Visualization /Cartography[]

Section Archives:Page 1 | Page 2

Symbols of the Nordic Union[]

Hey all we have redesigned the symbols of the Nordic union. We have the new banner of light, a white Nordic cross on a blue field representing the Nordic peoples unity and path of peace in the new world, the blue being the oceans which support their lifestyle. The emblem a series of bars is an aurora, with the bars representing the members. Let us know your thoughts Trainor90 (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

DD1983 Nordic Union Official Flag
DD1983 Nordic Union Emblem
I never liked the use of the Nordic Council symbols; a new organization should have something new. The aurora borealis is a perfect choice in my opinion. False Dmitri (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals[]

Section archives: Page 1 | Page 2

Culture / Society[]

Archives: Page 1Page 2Page 3

Miscellaneous discussion[]

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

A Question Regarding Exclusion Zones[]

Specifically how do you go about calculating them. At the moment I'm working on the basis of "about two miles outside the outermost ring on Nuke Map (which is well outside the limit of the radiation) and well out of the path of fallout" but I thought I'd better check because there's a lot of stuff that's kinda borderline.

Tessitore (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2023 (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 {{ddprop}} when reviewing new articles. To graduate an article, move to have the article graduated and if no one objects the article will be considered canon (see the Editorial Guidelines for more information on this process).

Archived Proposals: Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31

Proposal Review 20th Feb 24[]

Having a sweep through and propose the following of our proposals.

Graduate as Stubs[]

  • Belgium - Looks to be a central page for the work in the Belgian lowlands. Needs fleshing out significantly with the regions history but the page should exist in the canon, even if for now as a stub.
  • Campines - As above, I see no conflict in the canon and the page can be graduated, albeit as a stub.
  • Flanders - As Above. Will need to tie in with but not contradict Lille.
  • Geese republic - As Above. Did not have to prop template on but forms a part of this cloud of lowland micro states. Stub.
  • Land van Merode - As above.

Areas Needing Further Work[]

  • Governor Generalship of the Steppes - Has had some excellent input but the talk page alludes to some issues that could be cleaned up ready for grad considerations.
  • Grand Republic of Texas - As this will, going forward, be the central page for Texas and will pull a larger thread of Texan pages to a close, This will need to be cleaned up and finalised for us to agree to allow the Texan mantle to be passed over to this page.
  • Italian Federation - Slow burner but underway. Not ready for grad yet but definitely can continue to conclusion now the worst of the Sicilian rework has been solved.

Mark as Obsolete[]

  • Republic of Kosovo and Metohija - Talk page implies should be obsolete. Giving the pending Yugo review in the future, might be best to scrap this as outlined in the talk page.
  • Republic of Bati-Turkestan - Talk page indicates conflict of land with MLA.
  • Prince Edward - Died in Cambridge
  • Rishi Sunak - Would literally be an unimportant person, was a banker before becoming a politician in the 2010s
  • Taiwanese Fleet - Has been created outside of canon for China, by a user who was making unauthorised edits of the chinese pages, in an attempt to affect canon through independent pages.

Mark as Inactive[]

People Pages - I will be going through the people pages in turn, any that have had little information dropped in that isn't intrinsically linked to doomsday will be marked as inactive.

That will be all my efforts today. Please discuss under this. Trainor90 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

North Star Republic and United Minnesotan Communities[]

Two of Snolf's proposals, a southern Minnesotan survivor state and its larger regional organization. Connects to other lore well in the region. Arstar (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow, this has been stuck here a long time. It's ready, isn't it? False Dmitri (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think North Star is a good addition but UMC kind of overly populates the region, going from nothing except the US state and Olmsted to packed very fast. I think maybe the first is good to go. Arstar (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Bloomsburg University[]

Old proposal by Daes. I think its ready to go, minus the references to USD. Arstar (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

1985 Conjunctivitis Epidemic[]

Article by Crimson that has been around for some time. It's good to graduate as a stub by the end of the week. Arstar (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Uganda[]

An article that i make about the canonical People's Republic of Uganda based on the northern non-Bantu portion of the country. With regards, Alex (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Rwenzururu[]

An article about the mountainous kingdom of Rwenzururu. With regards, Alex (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Computer Games[]

Arcade aren't the only source of video games in the post Doomsday era. Personal computers could serve a similar, if smaller scale purpose, for gaming related needs.

Kelothan (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Colorado Basin Hydrology Projects[]

Proposal by Trainor90 on the contemporary hydrological projects surrounding the Colorado River Basin. With the controlled demolition of the ruined Hoover Dam, this project is more focused on the water flows, some of which I imagine have been going to now-depopulated places prior to the Projects. Arstar (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest[]

A truly ancient proposal (2015) that seems fine. The only major problem was the use of a convergent logo that came from the 2000s OTL. Seems good to graduate, but it should be listed here. False Dmitri (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

United States Congress[]

Another abandoned Gryff proposal that ought to be put under the same community custodianship as the US page itself. Certainly important and worth delving into. Arstar (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I doubt that any members of Congress would be evacuated beyond those in the actual presidential line of succession. The plan to keep Congress at Greenbriar presumed a period of rising tension leading to war - not a surprise attack with about 20 minutes of warning. I'm also not sure what kind of Congress could be formed from the APA. It would be only two states and its legality would be in doubt, but then again the idea could be worth considering. Either way, the page itself is clearly unfinished. False Dmitri (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Bashkortostan[]

I wrote this very much WIP article, as I think it would be pretty realistic to have a Bashkir survivor state in what's now southern/southeastern Bashkortostan, which is in the Ural Mountains. Bashkirs, Tatars and other ethnic groups in the region have a history of vying for independence (eg. Idel-Ural state, Bashkiria, 1992 Tatar independence referendum), and given the collapse of Soviet authority in the area it would be a great opportunity for the Bashkirs in the region to declare independence, at least in the mountains. Trolligi (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

CURRENT REVIEWS[]

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6

We place content under Review if someone thinks it contradicts canon or is so improbable that it's damaging to the timeline. To begin a Review, mark the relevant article(s) with the {{ddreview}} template and give your reasons why on the article's talk page and here. Just as with proposals, group consensus will decide if the article should be kept, modified, or marked obsolete.

Cuba[]

Those in the discord server are aware of my sandbox for the Cuba rewrite, but for those not, I'm going to link it here. You'll note that it's an extensive rewrite from the canon article as of July 7, 2022. The summary paragraph is subject to change but I believe still sums up my current aim for the page: to build on what is implied in the canon article and what is written in other pages while exploring the murky depths of the post-doomsday world a little more closely. Cuba seems to have a major presence in the Caribbean, regularly trading with South Florida and sponsoring a joint WCRB expedition with Mexico into the former southeast US. People's Republic of Angola also mentions Cuban soldiers, who remained in Angola until the "reconquista." These articles paint the picture of a Cuba which fell on its face after DD and recovered after.

In my review of Cuba, I am ensuring to respect the canon of all of these articles. However, as mentioned in my old review for this article, we know where Fidel and his cabinet were on DD and we can assume that, of all people, he would have redundant plan after redundant plan in the event of surprise Armageddon. This idea has been met with universal acceptance on the discord server, hence its retention. As daes pointed out, the missiles used in these attacks would be a trio of warheads delivered by a Minuteman-III. Havana and Santiago are the targets, with Havana being hit twice. So at this point, the primary changes to canon revolve around the survival of Fidel Castro, though both Fidel and Raul die decades earlier. So I examined Cuban civil defense strategies and went in on Doomsday. Then, I began to examine what the government would do. In the USAR page, it notes that Guantanamo Bay was occupied in November. It states that Cuban forces arrived to claim the base, implying some direction. Cuba and the US were at war and I decided to fill that out and I'm quite proud of what I've accomplished. I'm currently working on World War III. As I'm researching the Caribbean to determine what Cuba's next move might be. The more I research, the more pages I find that need extensive work (such as Puerto Rico, which is a stub or the USAR page, which is regularly called into review).

If I continue to fill Cuba's history on the scale I'd like, it's going to have to interact with its neighbors. Moving forward, I'd like to discuss the following brain-droppings:

  • Puerto Rico secedes the same year as the USAR officially forms. This implies that, even as of 1984, the USAR cannot project power and it does not get this back. Quite frankly, it seems like at this point in time, the nuclear-powered ships are probably more useful for their reactors than for their warship capabilities, especially once the PUSA collapses.
  • Cuba being able to gain power later in the TL means it has access to critical resources. The USAR or the fleet which becomes the USAR cannot project power, meaning Cuba is going to make offensive overtures. This will likely come in the form of capturing US offshore oil rigs. These installations are likely unguarded or, at the very least, not difficult for the Cuban navy to capture. I think, given the timing between when this would take place and when the PUSA collapses, the jeopardization of Gulf oil could serve as a great contributor to why the PUSA especially collapses in the Caribbean. It also makes the sale of oil rigs to Mexico that much more plausible.
  • I'm skeptical that a Marxist government, especially Cuba of all places, would use the terminology "reconquista" though its presence in other pages means I'm keeping this. I would like to explore what Sociolismo (analogous to a blat in Russia) looks like following a nuclear war and I bet it's what would contribute to the need for some significant fighting in Cuba. When I find a more appropriate term for this (and when this bad boy is finally a pproved), I will replace this semantical difference where I see it.
  • The USS John F Kennedy carrier was slated to leave Norfolk shortly before DD and it makes far more sense for it to survive because its crew would have been present and the ship would be more prepared for launch. This is, again, a semantical change.

These are all discussions I've had on the discord server and have been met with unilateral agreement thus far, but I'd like to hold a conversation here before I get super deep into this.

Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 08:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I deeply enjoy your review on Cuba, the one thing beyond agreeing with you and supporting you in this endeavor is that Cuba would only be able to get a part of the US oil rigs in the Gulf. A good chunk would be gotten by Mexico as well, what with fuel being a critical resource and all, and with Mexico being in a much better shape. Not ALL, mind you. Otherwise, godspeed and I hope you do great with it.

Thewolvesden 22:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about the term reconquista. It's a bizarre choice. It also has a "I know eight words in Spanish and this is one of them" feel to it. I'd support replacing it wherever it appears in reference to Cuba. False Dmitri (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It could be renamed as Operation Grito de Baire (as the first cuban independence movement) CentraleuropeDD (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The Great British Review, Phase 7: Concluding Remarks[]

Flag of the UK flying

It's been a long road for Britain, and while the end is in sight, some things remain yet to sort out. The goal remains to bring everything into consistency with the main history page, United Kingdom (1983: Doomsday).

  1. ✓ Look over the small bits that were left out of the other phases. These include Matlock and London (1, 2).
  2. ✓ Finish updates to the True British Army, which was not complete in the previous phase.
  3. Finish changes to Lancaster and Cleveland that Tessitore and Trainor have respectively been making.
  4. Recent events: Leicester, Eddy Poll, the de Montforts, and the civil war - these were old proposals from 2019, never quite brought into the canon. Many ideas from them are adapted into the main UK history already. For now it's still open whether a war actually ends up breaking out, maybe at some point during the 2020s.
  5. ✓ Check general articles: Doomsday in the UK, Nuclear power, 2010 World Cup, Europe, and the Timeline.
  6. Arstar on Discord has asked to reconsider three aspects of the new Celtic Alliance material. Specifically to leave the Cotentin out, bring Brittany back in, and get rid of the partition of Ulster, annexing it all to the Republic of Ireland. I'm open to the first but strongly against the other two. Others involved have their own takes on the question. We need to discuss this during the final phase and make any necessary changes.
  7. Take care of any other issues for Britain. This was some of the timeline's most detailed and also messiest content, which is why sorting through it has taken 22 months already. There are bound to be other loose ends.

We want to do this in a way that respects the region's history, the original contributors, and the whole project. False Dmitri (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the point of reviewing recent changes to the Celtic Alliance, it's probably worth noting I adopted it from the creator directly, and kept editing it along with Smoggy. I wasn't around for the beginning of this rewrite in 2021, and in '22 I was more concerned with cleaning up poor Italy, so its only now I've really had a look at what happened here. My ideas for modifying the side of the Alliance across the channel dates back to 2010, I'll attach my 2010 conversations with Mjdoch, the Celtic Alliance's creator, here:

Seeing that you no longer contribute here, may I adopt the Celtic Alliance? Arstarpool 15:51, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arstarpool, handing over the Alliance wow!!! Actually your right, I hardly get a moment to myself these days and would like to see the Alliance develop especially in the fields of medicine and navel capacity. If you would like to adopt the OTL all I would ask is that you keep me informed about developments and major changes, a sort of retired President. Just worried that the OTL might stray from the consititution and cultural development of re-emerging Island communities across Cornwall, Eire, England, Manx, Scotland, and Wales etc. Let me know what you think & feel free to use the Doomsday Facebook page if that helps Mjdoch 09:50 21, 2010 (GMT)

Thank you so much! I don't plan to make any major changes, although we recently had a dispute over the plausibility of New London, so that may have to go, but other than that I am just gonna make sure that some new guy doesn't comes along and blanks it out (its happened to alot of other nations in the ATL) or make sure that it's up to speed with the current events (new alliances, sports events, etc.). Anyways, I will make sure to keep you up to date on what I do, because being in charge of on of the powerful nations in 1983: Doomsday might be a handful. But thank you again! Arstarpool 16:24, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking about creating a special administrating authority for areas east of and including Cornwall and Normandy but since this would be pretty major I think I should consult you. Its just that a lot of states across the world are starting to reunify and France and eventually (not now) they will be knocking at Celtic's door asking for their territory back. So for now I think that Normany and all English land east of Cornwall should be placed in a special administration. Your verdict please? Arstarpool 05:56, September 5, 2010 (UTC)''

_______

It looks like my fear of folks "coming along and blanking pages" goes all the way back, lol. But anyways, I had the idea of putting the French side under a unitary administration all the way back then; I wanted to explore more-so the angle of the alliance emerging as an alliance of survival between a rump French government in Normany and Brittany (lets call it Nord du France for now), Ireland, and whats left of Scotland and Wales, with the Channel Islands - under Irish aid following the destruction of the UK - being the literal middle ground that brings "North France" and the pre-Alliance into continuous contact.

Regarding my "3 points" - its worth noting #2 faced considerable pushback on the Discord, so I would be amenable to drop that in exchange for focusing on #3. This actually works better for the plausibility of the "Nord du France" being an Alliance member, as the government style was loosened considerably as a result of what happened with Ireland, to my understanding. In short I would like to focus more on a unitary government between Contentin and Brittany, along with added strikes which weakens the overall region, emphasizing why this alliance of necessity happened in the first place.

In any case I'll try to come up with a draft for whats going on on the French side in the next couple weeks, bringing it somewhere in between the pre-2020 canon and the current "federal" structure. It's easier to "show" than debate something that's not written yet, so I'll try to be timely in getting that written down. Arstar (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I just don't understand why this development can't take place without having them join the Celtic Alliance. There is no reason whatever for them to be part of it. It was not part of the CA as originally designed, which was to above all an Irish-Scottish project that gradually extended to Wales, the Crown Dependencies and England. Brittany was tacked on due to one stray thought that sprang from random, nonsensical pan-celtist enthusiasm; and then no work was ever done to work out the details. Anything done at this point is just grasping at a rationalization that can force this stray thought into the history. Normandy and Brittany certainly ought to be developed better than they are. But trying to force them into a union with the British Isles is just not worth it, and it does nothing for the setting. False Dmitri (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

There was wider group enthusiasm at allowing my attempt at re-exploring this in a more nuanced sense on the Discord a couple weeks back, so in that vein I'll be exploring this idea and presenting a finished version for group decision to be made on regardless. I acknowledge Ondy's prior reservations (which I am keeping in mind and will do my best to answer/factor in when writing this) and your "Against" stance (which seems unlikely to change no matter what I put to paper, or maybe its the fact I'm exploring this at all that you don't agree with).

This article is so old it actually predates the Proposal process itself. The Celtic Alliance page remained ever in flux for the first 2 years of its existence; it grew, shrank, had more British components, lost them, had its name changed, had its nature changed, had those changes rolled back, all on a week-by-week basis -- Normandy/Cotentin entered the fray some 8 months in, and Brittany about 4 months after that, all within the first year of the article. No one version -- week-to-week edited by Mjdoch, HAD, and others -- can be described as the "original design" as you put it. I wouldn't be "forcing" them into anything had it not been previously part of the canon for the better part of a decade and change. Instead I am playing up the "Alliance" part, not the "Celtic" part. A Cross-Channel Alliance of Survival was proposed IRL in the lifetime of many of the elder surviving leaders here. In the face of nuclear autumn those first few years, mass starvation, inequity of certain food products, and the already existing NATO relationship to go off, it would certainly come up in the now-heavily weakened Channel region in passing at least once. There's other factors, armed secessionist movements and the like, that were already in the region on Doomsday, and would need to be reined in by the surviving government.

I agree with your TL-Wide recent assessment that this Timeline will see more "ephemeral" government structures abound -- vague authoritative confederal structures overseeing smaller , more centralized polities, with the line between "state" and "alliance" often blurred. I'm playing this ephemeral reality up in Normandy and Brittany, not going against it, and also taking the time to explain its rationale for likely the first time. You still kept Cotentin in the mix, so I'm explaining that with greater detail as well. Brittany here will lose two more cities of hundreds of thousands that should have never been allowed to walk away in all past versions -- those cities surviving would make it the undisputed hegemon of the Francophone region if Rennes and Nantes with their bases, international airports, heavy government presence and heavy industry were left intact; as I'm presenting Northern Brittany (the south and west are screwed) as smaller, weaker and certainly less powerful than the current stub implies, owing to these facts.

Arstar (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, I also hate the idea of Celtic Brittany for out-of-universe reasons: it turns this weird yet interesting and ultimately plausible structure into a tiresome cliché. But I'm not at all upset that you're exploring the area. Something ought to be done with it beyond the very rough placeholder that I made for Brittany. It just shouldn't be "Celtic" because that is and always was just a really bad idea. Make a joint government, have it partner with the Irish and British, have joint structures for various things. But an alliance that was half French would simply never have called itself "Celtic" or done all the other things that it did. False Dmitri (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


Iberian Peninsula and Macaronesia[]

Hello everyone!

I would like to start a project that I consider important for the timeline. I want to rewrite the history of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain, Portugal, Andorra, Gibraltar, and the Pyrenean part of southern France) and Macaronesia (Azores, Madeira, Canary Islands, and Cape Verde). The inclusion of Macaronesia is essential as they are culturally linked to the Iberian world. Additionally, they are essential for the reestablishment of the post-Doomsday states of Portugal and Spain.

I see that in recent months, many pages of the timeline are being rewritten, so I believe it is important to review the Iberian world. The history of the Iberian successor states is very chaotic; sometimes much of the information is not consistent across different pages, it's not canon, or it's information that doesn't align with real-world events. Many gaps need to be filled, and the coherence of Iberian history needs improvement, and I believe it is a very interesting region that has been very forgotten. Therefore, I propose creating a new page titled "Iberian Peninsula and Macaronesia (1983: Doomsday)", where a more accurate and well-founded version of the region's history can be presented. On this page, I will add all the information I can to later rewrite the pages if the community thinks what I have written is correct. For now, I don't want to edit individual pages to avoid modifying information; I think the first step is to provide an overview of history and then proceed with individual rewriting.

I plan to be on this project for the next few months (I think I'll have, for now, two free months). I believe it could be a good idea to create a more complete and accurate history of the Iberian world. Any ideas, comments, suggestions are welcome.

Spinovenator (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Spinovenator and welcome back to the timeline. This is certainly an ambitious idea you have here. Although unfortunately I have to inform you that the majority of the Iberian Peninsula is already being caretaken right now, although there are a few pages that are open for adoption. Reviews are to be applied sparingly - most typically in the case of deep implausibility. You are correct in pointing out that in 2021 and 2022 there were quite a few pages that were formally Reviewed (sometimes by their original authors, sometimes by admins or newer caretakers) after a years long stretch of slumped activity here, but as of last year we've been applying these reviews more sparingly - (the controversial, and partially-rolled back Italy Review is one example why). As this community is going on 16 years of age, we have to be cautious to not overwrite the ideas of many with the newer ideas of one or two.

I don't want to dissuade you from sharing your ideas on the Iberian Peninsula with us, and please do point out any contradictions you think are present in the work -- those are always a problem that can be fixed. Iberia is a frequent topic on the Discord - CentraleuropeDD, myself, Alessio, Trainor90 and TheWolvesDen (Ondy) are the authors or caretakers of various pages on the Peninsula and we're still working on it frequently. I noticed you are the original author of Cazorla, so we should all definitely be looped in to make a game plan for the region's future going forward.

That being said, there are a few pages that are up for adoption which have gone neglected over the years, should you reach out to their respective authors and ask for permission - Leon-Castille is one such example.

If you want to join us over there, and share your ideas with us there and see what we've been discussing on Iberia, I'll attach the link here -> [1].

Arstar (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES[]

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3

This subsection is for decisive and vital issues concerning the 1983: Doomsday Timeline. Due to the complexity level we have reached with 1983: Doomsday now, each of these issues might have world-spanning consequences that affect dozens of articles. Please treat this section with the necessary respect and do not place discussions that do not belong here.

Restoring the US-NAU Balance[]

Hello everyone, Arstar here: for some time I've been observing the direction things are going in now (especially in North America and Eurooe) vs. the way they were intended when the pages were written, when these ideas were introduced. As we all know, the canon profile of nations has evolved and expanded greatly over the years, bringing us far from the original fragile rag-tag band of isolated survivor states who found eachother in a sea of death -- Chumash, and the Portuguese islands, South America, Australia, the lonely Atlantic Canada and its tiny client state Aroostook, one of the few "lucky" places of the US to survive, and what remained of Siberia. Now, we have a world springing back to live, literally from the ashes. There's been an argument over the years on how "apocalyptic" this timeline should be, I think it was User:Mitro that called it "gloom" camp versus the "optimist" camp some years ago. Since then, the latter seems to have won out (perhaps as it inherently means more people can participate) the map has sprung to life -- after all, even in the places that would see the most destruction, someone would live to tell the tale, and rebuild their area, even while others fled for greener pastures. So it makes sense that 40 years on, the world map would look something more or less like it does.

However, there is one development that has stuck out in particular, and one I had a hand in, that myself and others, both old and new, believe should be addressed - The United States has become too overpowered from what its original writers, including Mitro, BrianD, and later SouthWriter, intended. As can be seen [[2]], primordial user Louisiannan made a pit stop appearance in 2018 to say this: The information in this article conflicts with information in the North American Union article. In that Article, Utah and Dinetah are part of the NAU, and the NAU, from -THAT- article, seem to be what becomes the restored United States. You should review this."

In the [American Union talk page], Mitro, the creator of both the NAU and PUSA, says.

"Honestly I don't think many states would want to join PUSA. Consider the fact that the leaders/parties/factions/families in power have controlled their survivor states for over two decades. They have established their own institutions and identities, and more importantly they like being big fish in a little pond. To join the PUSA they would have to be "demoted" to roles in a state government and follow the rules of the PUSA government. Now the smaller survivor states might be interested in this. Most are probably surviving only by the skin of their teeth, but the larger states like Provisional Canada (which turned down statehood in PUSA) and Utah (which has become incredibly influenced by the Mormon religion) would see the NAU as the better option. In that organization they have the opportunity to preserve their independence and identity, while getting the benefits of free trade, military aide and other benefits from being a part of an economic/political union. Maybe decades down the line people will call for the NAU to the be the NAF, but right now the loose structure is more preferable.

Right now I think the NAU will remain a western North American institution. States like Superior or Virginia don't hold much interest to the NAU, and they have their own organizations anyway (like the League of American States and the Dixie Alliance). However I wouldn't be surprised if the NAU does not strech their borders west to the Pacific and south to the Rio Grande. "

In summary, the NAU was supposed to be the organism of parabolic here, not the US itself. I myself am partially responsible for this, in a way, I realize, as I along with User:SouthWriter orchestrated the annexations of Oregon and Dakota, as well as the somewhat unlikely union with the Virgin Islands-based United States Atlantic Remnant. While I am not arguing for a full rollback of all the added states, perhaps we should pause looking to expand this Union on grounds of plausibility -- states more urbanized and prosperous than the PUSA residence would not surrender sovereignty to Torrington because of the nostalgia of a generation 50 and up who remembers the old US, but joining the NAU has pragmatic benefits. There are examples of least a few to scale back a few sovereign states making more sense being NAU states instead of US ones, Cascadia, which was already a NAU member state, is a prime example of this. There is nothing they would stand to gain by joining the US when they are already a NAU member-states, which shares the same currency, open borders, trains, telephone grid, and even police presence as the PUSA states. (the territories like Iowa, are a different story, those seem fine). Outside of Cascadia, there has been conflict between the fate of the Municipal States of the Pacific, later becoming the Republic of Jefferson now, I have spoken with User:Goldwind1 and he has explained how his the Republic of Jefferson and the Jefferson Nationalists were written in as a possibility, but as a group, bringing the other parts of the canon into the present on this matter, we should look to the fact that the US does not exist in a vacuum, and that the NAU would have its own role in how things were carried out.

Now, why is this a good idea? It gives us more liberty to explore a truly expanded federation of the North American Union. The NAU flag has the potential to rally more people in both the former US and Canada than the stars and stripes. The NAU was intended to be more of a round-table: Utah has more resources than many other parts of the Union, Provisional Canada has abundant oil and natural gas, California has gold, Pasco Free State has...vibes? It all rounds out well. Also, User:BrianD at various junctures discussed the possibilities of his Republic of Texas articles open to join the NAU bloc later down the road; prospective adoptee User:Sir Ross seems to feel the same. On the Republic of Lincoln talk page, Yankovich270 wrote he would be open to the idea of the NAU and Lincoln, but not the US. If we move to make this bloc a well-oiled union as it was intended, we can explore larger growth that fits within the scope of plausibility. Another perk in this regard would be to explore additional Canadian member-states. Athabaska had been in talks of joining. Anyways, let me know what you guys think. It's good to see an uptick of discussion on matters like this on a regular basis on the Discord, it would be good to get a similar momentum going on this issue wiki-side, so everyone can participate.

Arstar (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I certainly missed that when I did US-related content. Things like the continuity-of-government report and American Spring have tended to give the initiative to the USA and leave the NAU looking like a relevant but not terribly important alliance in which the USA just happens to find itself. I'd be 100% on board with undoing Cascadia and maybe San Juan, and putting a pause on other statehood movements. When a creation doesn't belong to any one person, it creates the problem of a lack of coherent planning, and that's what's happened here, I think. Different people have worked on bits of this thing with no one clear vision. Right now, when we've just straightened out the place's early history and are developing some of the lands around its borders, seems like a good time to take our bearings and recalibrate. False Dmitri (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree. I think Cascadia’s reunification occurs on a drastically compressed timeline. It joins the NAU in 2011 and the US basically a decade later. That just, in my opinion, is a pretty quick change in heart.

Also, rejoining the US will be expensive for both the country and the nation joining. Many of these nations are impoverished and the cost may not be worthwhile.

I would be okay leaving Cimarron, the division of Minnesota from Dakota, and the expansion into Missouri. These seem to be logical developments. Cimarron has bordered Colorado and Kansas since the PUSA was founded and these states would likely be the largest trade partners. Western Minnesota has been under the control of Dakota likely since the 1980’s, splitting it off would probably be more of a political decision to “Restore America”. The region in Missouri would be fairly isolated from the east, but likely has relatively consistent interaction with Dakota.

San Juan, if we leave it more as US nationalists fleeing there from Victoria, because they don’t want to lose their American identity, I think we can justify it. But I also do not believe it should be a separate state. Rather, I think it should be administered as part of Oregon or Lincoln.

As it stands, the US taking Jefferson involved a ground invasion and occupation that I don’t think it could successfully pull off. Roadways in this region are both sparse and likely incredibly degraded. That would basically preclude armor and would result in mostly infantry and artillery. The US would probably incur heavy casualties.

Also, the NAU, CANZ, SAC, USSR, and LoN would likely all react extremely negatively towards the US acting like this. The NAU would probably see concerns within member states that were formerly American states of the US deciding to occupy them. The CANZ would probably be highly concerned about working to improve ties with a nation that immediately invades a nation it helped form and support. The SAC and USSR would likely view it as America returning to pre-Doomsday imperialism and the LoN would likely take a similar opinion.

Daeseunglim (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to take this on? What specific changes ought to occur? I think definitely some additions to the NAU article to restore it to prominence, along with similar additions to the USA page to make it clear that the Union drives a lot of its policy. Then it sounds like reviewing the recent history of the MSP/Jefferson, as well as Cascadia, to have them be NAU members rather than states of the US. San Juan is just weird anyway with Victoria right there, and in my opinion there needs to be some clarification around Victoria's history before any serious decision is made about the islands. False Dmitri (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It's going to be a gradual task that everyone needs to pitch on in. I've done my part to add more content to the North American Union page, and highlighting it as an internationally present body, the first line of contact the global powers have with this region as opposed to its member-states.

You're spot on that the United States page will need to be re-worked to emphasize how Union drives policy. I added a section on NAU-SAC relations and NAU-OO relations. There's an ANZC embassy in San Rafael that as of right now is solely Californian, but I'll change that to being an OO-NAU embassy. If anyone wants to pitch in on the United States page, given the US page is everyone and no one's domain at the same time, we can slowly get it in the right direction.

MSP/Jefferson will be a tricky one. Goldwind, if you're reading this, we'll need to hear your thoughts on everything discussed here as Jefferson was your idea. I think it works best as a NAU member over becoming a state. There's room to improve on the plausibility of what happened there, because as its presented now everyone would be sanctioning the US for what they did there. The MSP was the baby of the Pacific democratic states, they would be appalled by a occupation and annexation. Orb/Trainor90 did his part to rework Okanogan Territory as an NAU project, so that's one down already. I don't think San Juan's status needs changing, its a tiny island full of people who, like Daes said, were opposed to Victorian expansion and thus became more pro-American. Likewise, Victoria's problems are minor -- Olympia, Washington's state capital joining in 2009, an over-emphasis on monarchism (although forcing Americans to participate in the British crown is hilarious) and others minute details -- but that's not really impacting the NAU issue regardless.

Arstar (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I still supoart jefferson as a state of the union. The MSP was a colaiton of mostly cropurt neo fuedual warlord ships that later put on the trapping of democary. The msp suffered a people uprisng do a rigged eleciton commintd with the police killing an inseard deomcoary activist. The poeple uprisign in the msp would have failed with out union support. Also the america didn't occpui occuped the msp after pacfic cival war. After war jefferson spent 10 years as a inpenet republic and went through 3 eletons and 2 presidency. During that period of indpenect jeffefson relaitons with the new united states were very postive do to the new union help the people over though the tryants and the because the new unio helped them rebuild and expand there infrasturue. The people vote overwhelming in favor of joing the union when a referudum was held in 2022 Goldwind1 (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Aren't you mischaracterizing what the MSP was? Its city-states were bad in the 90s and 00s, yes, but then it was supposed to be a success story. But what Arstar is getting at is this: the MSP/Jefferson definitely relies on its connections to ANZ and South America. Those are important relationships. Now what are people there going to think when the USA, one of the WW3 aggressors, does a military intervention there, and then a few years later annexes it. And MSP was a League of Nations member and the USA was not. So a nonmember invades, then annexes a member. That's how it will look. And both ANZ and South America will do whatever is in their power to not let that happen. False Dmitri (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, its a mischaracterization. Also, entire countries don't fall because a single activist was murdered by police. If that was the case, the USA would have fallen decades ago in our world. Like Ben said, the MSP was fully connected to the international community, and most of its problems had been ended by the 2000s founding.

Basically Goldwind, the "military occupation" and annexation destroys the USA's chances of being respected on the international stage, let alone trusted. They were getting modern-day good and technology years before the USA/NAU were, due to their close relationship with the Pacific nations, they arguably had a higher quality of life going into the 2010s. If we keep this in place fully as it is now, we're basically forced to explore a narrative where many abroad will think the USA is one of the bad guy nations. Arstar (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Just becasue The anzc and sac support the MSP dosn't mean the msp was a model democarty. T .Beside the inidcent were the activist was there were many inidcents of the msp police force made up of former hells angels. The msp asl burtally censured disent in the press. The part about the death of the avist was my idea but the rest were the ideas of my presdassor. To me the anzc and the Sac were will to look past the msp tyrancy because they want a foothold on the american west coast and because they evenaly decide to put on a sham democary. I consider the anzc and sac realtion with the msp to be simalir to the otl american zaire realtiont The otl usa has support dciatoral regaimes like steven mubto zaire during the cold war because they were anti comisnt. We contied to support muto after the cold war because he agreed to commiest democrtic trappings.Perhaps the msp article should be rewrtien so that only the sac supported the msp so they could have a west north american cost foothold to conuter balcne the anzc foot hold in the calforian republic .I orignally wanted the sac and the anzc to suport the pro democrtic rebels in the pacfic cival but someone shot down that idea. So I had the new united states help the rebles instead. IF the msp is rewrtien perhaps we could have the anzc provie help to the rebles durign the cival warGoldwind1 (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

An idea that's suggested has been partitioning the old MSP, which is sort of unwieldy anyway. So that the most of the coast is aligned with that Pacific world while some of the inland parts develop ties to the NAU. That inland part is what becomes Jefferson, but a smaller MSP would continue to exist. That seems fairly realistic to me. And it would allow us to explore some of the complicated motives affecting many of the different sides here. It would also be a more nuanced and complex story than the current one. False Dmitri (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to accpet a rewritte where the cavil rights party ether agreed to peaceful break up to advoid the war or they agreed to let the rebellious cities go there spearpet way when after America started turning the war in the favor of the rebels. Note that dividing the msp form Jefferson isn't as easy as giving all the coast to the msp and the inland to Jeffergson Coastal port orrford is a major Jefferson naitonsilis stronghold. In fact the Jefferson naitonalist where founded by mayor of port offord . Also the inland reading was major civaic rights strong hold. I

I still oppose a partition of Jefferson. We need to consider that the people of Jefferson would need to see a benefit from joining the USA. Jefferson, I would argue, will be one of the least “American” survivor states in the former USA. I think it is possible a substantial part of its population are from Australia or New Zealand.

The nation likely has one of the highest standards of living in the former US, as it would probably be a major waypoint for CANZ and SAC vessels in the Pacific.

Additionally, the region is arguably somewhat geographically isolated from the rest of the USA (in the TL). From what I have found on maps, most of the roads run “north-south”. US Route 101 runs from south of Eureka (San Fransisco bay area) through Crescent City, Brookings, Gold Beach, Coos Bay, Newport, and Astoria (continuing into Washington state). Interstate 5 runs a north-south route as well through Redding, Eugene, and Salem, through Portland. I only found US Route 97 that runs a rough east west route connecting the USA and Jefferson. It runs through Bend and terminates near Mount Shasta, north of Redding (roughly 65 miles apart).

Something else is, while the USA is not the APA, people in the area will recall the Crescent City Crisis and the APA withdrawing. Regardless of if they were pro or anti American at that point, there will still likely be some sour grapes.

I could see Jefferson becoming an associate member in the Oceanic Organization and the NAU, to serve as an intermediary between the Pacific and North America. But I just don’t see any compelling reason for Jefferson to reunite with the USA.

Daeseunglim (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The Italy Issues, Part 2[]

Italy is a Fundamental Issue because (1) it's so central to a number of 83dd storylines and (2) work done over the last few years has been messy and inconsistent, requiring a concerted cleanup effort from multiple people. I archived the old discussion because it got long, and because we're at a natural turning point in the work. Here's where it all stands.

  1. Work on Sicily and the south is finished.
  2. The Second Sicily War is more or less finished but could use looking over.
  3. The War of the Alboran Sea also needs to be checked. Alessio has proposed a detailed alternative suggestion that has not yet been ruled out, and I suspect the best outcome will be to selectively incorporate content from there.
  4. Genoa remains in a messy, inconsistent state and probably should be returned to the way it was, since it was never adopted fairly nor made subject to a real review (though I still feel strongly that the royalist government is ASB).
  5. Sardinia is also messy and inconsistent and needs to be consistent with Sicily.
  6. The Piedmontese Federation has never made it past the proposal stage. If it is to become canon, it will require some changes.
  7. The Italian Federation is a new proposal written to correspond with this ongoing work.

False Dmitri (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The Obsolete category[]

Recently we've talked about subdividing the large number of Obsolete pages to better reflect their true status. Arstar and I recently created a new category for Inactive proposals. This is for things that were never completed to the point where they could graduate, but they could conceivably be finished at some point.

Wargames message
This 1983: Doomsday Proposal was marked Obsolete due to inactivity.

This article is not part of the 1983: Doomsday canon because it was abandoned during the proposal process. If you would like to resurrect this proposal, please comment on the main talk page.

Now, we'd like to create another subcategory for former canon to mark things that had been approved but later affected by the Review process. We're hoping that this can be a less harsh way to treat content that needs reworking.

Last of the V8 Interceptors
Last of the V8 interceptors - a piece of history!

This 1983: Doomsday article is former canon. Other pages might refer to the information here, but a review has determined that it is outdated and no longer part of the main Doomsday canon.

This section is to discuss this idea. False Dmitri (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

First is fine, second seems to put pages in a shroedinger-esque state. Either it is or isn't in that canon, the 'other pages may refer part' adds ambiguity for this purpose which is a whole other can of worms to open later down the line when pages are referencing two different histories of the past. Trainor90 (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

ADOPTIONS[]

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3

Republic of Iraq[]

If it is okay I would like to adopt the republic of Iraq and update it to the timelines modern day. I would keep the olds Authors writing as long as it upheld canon and I would add things and write more about Iraq. User:Crazyman

Hey Crazyman, sounds good to have a new face brushing the dust off on that page's recent history. Arstar (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Republic of Texas (1983: Doomsday)[]

I am going to try to make an up-to-date version of the Republic of Texas that is consistent with lore from this decade and that puts more thought into the post-Doomsday history. Currently, the Republic of Texas is all over the place and has very inconsistent information. Another issue is the extreme length of the article and the bizarre choice of what to include in it. I plan on trying to completely rework it while also trying to use as much as I can from the old article. I want to keep as much of the former writer's hard work, but there are glaring issues that need to be changed (such as Laredo existing still). My WIP: Grand Republic of Texas (1983: Doomsday) (Proposal) Sir Ross (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with Ross adopting this under the sole condition that the name stays the same, and myself and the community retain a seat at the table for mapping out the foreign relations. Arstar (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

West Poland (1983: Doomsday)[]

I'm going to try and make a finished page for West Poland, and make it into a proposal, alike the user above did with Texas - MrF787 19:47 BST, 18:47 GMT 07.08.2023

https://althistory.fandom.com/wiki/West_Poland_(1983:_Doomsday)_(Proposal) here is my proposal, unfinished yet though - MrF787 21:41 BST, 20:41 GMT 07.08.2023

https://althistory.fandom.com/wiki/West_Poland_(1983:_Doomsday)_(Proposal) added MUCH stuff to it, excuse me for the sports part but I'm a big fan - MrF787 21:39 BST, 20:39 GMT 11.08.2023

This is a good adoption, West Poland has pretty much no history at all. Well now I'd like to see more history, how and why this part of Poland ended up with the communist government. I appreciate the exploration of an evolved communist system. The timeline needs more of that. False Dmitri (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Siberia[]

I would like to adopt SiberiaGoldwind1 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Siberia is a huge topic and it's more or less beyond any one writer's control. Better to talk about the specific things you'd like to add, and the group can all help you. False Dmitri (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Acorrding my understanding to adoption portocol. A person has seven days to to complain to block a person adoption attempt. Thus I belive that My adoption went though on the 10th. I still will anounce my plans and drop them if they get large . A bare bones verison of my plans is that that Aman Tuleyev has retired. He was replaced by defense secuarty Sergey Shoigu as chairman. Chairman Shoigu took Siberia in unpopular hardline russian nationlist and autoratain direction.. Eveunaly the poliburo has enough of him and laucnh a coup to replace him with the reformer Voldmyer Zelnisky. I know he was born in the ukriane but his father had job that temoprary moved the family to mongolia and they were living there in 1983. Does any have suggestion for the date of Chairman Tuleya retirment and the coup that replace shoigu with zelsisky. I feel that the zlekisky rise to before would be late 2021 at early possibly laterGoldwind1 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I just started editing the solicalist siberia history section. So far I have added a section for the shoigu regime but part of me feels it is a weak. I would like some feedback on the quality of the writing and some help improving it if it bad before I right a section for the August Revoulation.Goldwind1 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a very cartoonish direction that involves a lot of OTL people being involved in OTL stuff. Shoigu isn't really guaranteed to be anywhere in Siberia around DD, bcs he was involved in construction projects across the Soviet Union. I'm wholeheartedly disagreeing with this bizarre turn. I'm also really questioning Zelenskyi being into politics, and even the possibility of a hardliner turn in the USSR. The USSR of DD is described as a very decentralised place, smth I would like to continue. I even question Aman Tuleyev being around. Overall, this is just a goofy turn, and as Ben said above, Siberia is too big and affects too much to be held by one user. We've been moving against that sort of insularity in DD, and this direction is the WRONG direction. Thewolvesden 21:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the importance of Siberia, I suggest the same approach we took with the CANZ. I also suggest this approach for the SAC and possibly India.

One or two people will be responsible for editing the page, but changes will be a group consensus in Discord and here on the talk age.

wh

Daeseunglim (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, as the caretaker for China, changes to Siberia would seriously affect the plans for china. I agree with the others that a nation as integral to the TL as Siberia needs to be a joint effort, changes to its trajectory affect pretty much every continent in the TL and need to be handled with the gravitas that such a change commands. Also shoe horning in zelensky seems too tied to current events and implausible in the TL. This would not be a valid approach to any governmental change. These things needs to be discussed at length. Trainor90 (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I will undo my changes if I keep getting negtive feedback

I chose Shoigu as the guy who takes socilist siberia in a hardline direciton because the solcaist siberia milatry page menioned him as minster of defense. I chose zweliskly as the guy who replaced shoigu becaue gryhodor kyrpot stated a article for zelwiksy that said that he was in poltic and not much else.

If I keep geting negitive feedback then does anybody like the idea of news that the train attack started the second manuchia was a flase flag attack orginzed by sibeirina genral and the kgd. This new lead the power of the kgb being reduced and the minstery of denfes beign purge of expanison hawks and replaced with genral who favor defending the terrotiy they own appoachGoldwind1 (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a really good idea actually, because it was something of a false flag; the purge of the expansion hawks and change to a more social-development minded leadership would be an interesting approach. It would be like a glasnost period for the Siberians. This is much better. And it's not negative feedback, but more that like the other major power pages like the SAC, ANZC or the USA this page requires multiple people steering the ship, so you can certainly add things. Maybe it would also be good to ask who else is interested in helping out with the USSR on a long-term basis as this page has been relatively quiet for some time. Arstar (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Adoption of F1[]

Hi, I'm the same person who adopted the 2022 FIFA World Cup (1983: Doomsday), I might want to adopt F1 too, I asked yesterday on the F1 talk page but I figured out I'll get answer quicker here. - MrF7801 17:35 BST 01/07/2023

Are you still active? The person to reach out to would be F1Geek. Arstar (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Socialist International[]

Me and Crim would like to adopt the article about the SI. Thank you. With regards, Alex (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to go. Arstar (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Poughkeepsie[]

Hello, I would like to adopt the Poughkeepsie (1983: Doomsday) article. I mostly just would like to update the article but eventually I would like to have Poughkeepsie join the Republic of New York (1983: Doomsday). Thanks I hope you consider my request.Tj7820 (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey Tj, looks like its free to adopt. Arstar (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Korea[]

I reached out earlier today to the previous authors of Korea (Jnjaycpa and Desert viking) to adopt Korea. The idea some users have of gutting the existing canon on Korea in favor of permanent North and South rump states (whose existence OTL was only due to the Americans and Soviet/Chinese support which is non-existent in this timeline) is a violation of how we're supposed to go about adoptions and reviews; the problems can be just as easily cleared up by valid adoptionship adding new content to fill in the foggy parts. I will be bringing the history of these pages into 2023, and correct the minor implausibilities where they are apparent. I will be expanding the content on Jeju to make it less "camp-y", making it more of a real place (aka with a Korea majority still) possibly with a page of its own. Korea being an industrial-technological economy with ties to both the Siberian and democratic East Asian camps, a world player contrasted to the comparatively still-somewhat-isolated Japan. It will be hosting a World's fair as per Goldwind's proposal, so I will be covering that as well.

In short, there's things to be discussed here (Busan, et al) but it won't be in the context of a review.

Arstar (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I second this request, Korea does not need to be undone to bring it up to speed. Rather have it being enriched and improved than stripped bare and remodelled Trainor90 (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

There are some issues there for sure. Kim deciding that he's OK working with the south in order to keep out Chinese refugees - this rings extremely false to me, and it's an instance of that trope of "refugees = Barbarian units" that shows up from time to time. And I think that Korea would be utterly devastated, not particularly strong in industry or tech. But I'd be in favor of massaging the canonical history in a way that produces a more plausible version of current content, rather than a full rewrite.

My article World War III (1983: Doomsday) is basically a record of my musings. (To be honest it might be better kept in my userspace for now.) But in the Korea section I wrote ideas for how to nudge the Second Korean War in a somewhat bleaker direction that still results in the unity state. I expect that even this is a deeper change than you have in mind, but I do think that aspects of it can be useful. False Dmitri (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, the refugees would be a pressing concern (although the final wording could use some reworking) and would be one of many material issues that would bring the two disparate sides together. The major concern of mass movements of people in the aftermath of nuclear war has been factored into the OTL United Kingdom's wartime contingencies (including the report our favorite movie Threads was based off) as well as the US' own plans, which seek to keep as many people sheltered in place for as long as humanly possible.

Regarding Kim's "We must unite" -- it was an oversimplification. It sounds cool, but certainly wouldn't be verbatim what happened. But the categorization of his plea - "suing for peace" has extremely valid precedent in many a war, and I find this newer idea contemporary that ideologically opposed parties will fight to the last man, woman and child -- just utterly committed to the Baby Boomer's worst Cold War fears -- has a much weaker precedent in history, and we now know neither side was truly prepared for "Total War", in spite of their fears the other side was prepared to do so. There comes a point of material exhaustion, and the ensuing peace we see here is a result of that. The nukes had an equalizing effect in a way of ensuring both sides felt that exhaustion fast. Think of two guys who have been hammering away at each other, and finally, they just can't keep going. Korea would be one of the first to suffer that, and with the surviving Siberians and Americans preoccupied with licking their wounds elsewhere, they would certainly find solace in peace and reunification. This generation of adults was still largely born under "one Korea", that counts for making it a much more possible outcome than in our timeline.

I know I've made my general concerns about the overuse of the Review process ad nauseum on the Discord, and my position holds. I understand a great deal of what was cleaned up, especially in East Britain and North Africa, is for the best, but we're now reaching a point where a segment of the user base still thinks most everything is crap, when at our peak with an even larger user base we never had this problem; there's now a fork timeline for this POD, if some folks want to re-divide Korea in a Doomsday setting there is a fresh outlet to do that without tossing this. I would be in favor of applying some of your ideas here so long as "the ground holds", and we're certainly in agreement that Korea is going to be in bad shape that first decade, par with the whole world north of the Equator. There's certainly a lot that needs to be fleshed out here. Arstar (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I 100% agree with your concerns, and while I know I've driven more of these reviews than anyone, I also have always gone out of my way to maintain everything about the original that's possible. I've always tried to build my reviews around correcting a defined set of issues, rather than replacing the content wholesale.
For Kim though, my issue is that he isn't some believer in an ideology... he's the architect and focus of the world's most literal cult of personality, 30 years into holding absolute and unquestioned power. He's grown accustomed to being a god. These are not the kinds of conditions that lead someone to act with rational self-interest. The canonical unification can work with adjustments to language; even "we must unite" can be the phrase - but I can't imagine Kim being the one to decide that. It's utterly alien to him at that point of his life; it would require the intervention of the proverbial alien space bats. The generals and people won't want to fight to the last man, but he sure will. I could accept anyone else making those moves, just about... Kim Junior also seems unlikely to act rationally, for similar reasons; but all the leaders outside the family are likely to have that dawning clarity that you describe.
As for the refugees, obviously they're going to be a huge factor, especially for a country bordering a populous part of China. It's the way they're portrayed that rings false, not the fact that they cause a challenge or that they would be unwelcome.
I guess to sum up, other than clarifications to the wording, and a desire to avoid portraying Korea as excessively strong or wealthy at any point postwar, my only real gripe with the content is just that about Kim himself. Giving those words and actions to anyone else would turn it into a realistic story. The premier, the chairman of the assembly, any other top official. False Dmitri (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with FD, I disagree with Kim being so willing to reunify. I frankly think that both governments would need to collapse for any total reunification to occur or else we will have one or two rump states claiming to be the legal successors and another state that has no connection to the past.

Also, the “Barbarian Horde” trope used I think is ignoring that northeastern China is somewhat cut off from the rest of the country due to nuclear strikes and the Soviet ground invasion may actually blunt the number of refugees.

Daeseunglim (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

By rump states, I'm guessing you mean factions that refuse to go along with the reunification? I agree that would be expected and would add to the fleshing-out of the story, and I think it can be done as an addition rather than a subtraction or change. The unification process can be more messy and uneven but still ultimately succeed across all or most of the peninsula. Especially with the collapse of both regimes, Korea would have a number of forces pulling it toward being one nation again. False Dmitri (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Monterey Lawless Zone[]

Hello everyone, I was considering adopting the Monterey page in order to rewrite it. I wanted to keep the same core events/characteristics but elaborate how the post-Doomsday era leads into its status as a buffer zone between two states, as well as bring up to speed post-occupation by Chumash in 2016. I thought I could offer some insight, as a resident of the Central Coast myself. A little bit has been mentioned about its annexation but nothing in detail. Particularly, I figured it would be incorporated as a sort of frontier territory, eventually being redeveloped throughout the years. This might have effects on the Chumash page, not sure how to go about that. SashaVolko (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

South Carolina (1983: Doomsday)[]

I began this process last month, but I have adopted SC and will be giving it the same treatment I've given my NC article (which itself is seeing some love since I managed to get the history caught up, focused on other things, and lo and behold I have to bring it current again). I want to explore the independent states as they existed up until 2010ish. Like NC, there seems to be one large power with maybe one or two small states on the coast of some import. What happens with the Piedmont Republic - which I have also formally adopted - is quite frankly TBD. I would prefer to avoid writing with some predetermined goal in mind. However, I also find it unlikely for the borders of these post-DD states to stay stagnant. In NC, Blue Ridge has unified the state by 2020. It will renames itself the State of Carolina to reflect this. I did see South discussing a potential union between Blue Ridge and Piedmont down the road and I wonder if that would have happened by 2024. Again, trying to avoid writing towards some outcome so the history is a bit more organic.

As a preliminary note, I did determine we're missing some targets, namely Shaw AFB, which I'll be adding to the list and map if there are no objections.

Curmudgeonly yours - Crim 17:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Advertisement