¡Hola! Long time no see. I've been doing alright.
I too had this problem, and I'd be more than happy to help out as much as I can. Firstly, it should be noted that either or (Sunni or Shia) could proclaim the rightful "ownership" of the name Iraq. Probably not what you are looking for, but something to keep in mind (if needed).
The two most popular names that I've come across would be Babylon (or Babylonia) for the Shia State and Jazira for the Sunni State. Babylon is was a noted city in the Lower Mesopotamia for millennia and likely would be a decent name. Jazira (not to be confused with Al Jazeera) is a catch-all term for the Sunni regions of Iraq and Syria (basically what ISIS currently claims), but it can specifically refer to Iraq. Another potential name for the Shia State could be Basra, which is named after the largest city in the area.
- Do forgive me for the delayed response. Too many things going on at the moment.
- In regards to Baghdad, I'm not completely sure. My best guess would be that Baghdad is carved up by the two sides, with said boundaries being decided from battles. More or less similar to what happened to Jerusalem, Nicosia, and Sarajevo (to name a few). That's my best guess.
No worries. Always happy to help out.
Turkey has been very hostile towards a potential Kurdish state, even threatening to invade them. Though it should be noted they said the same thing against Armenian independence and nothing came of it. In all likelihood, Turkey refuses to establish diplomatic ties with Kurdistan and possibly refuses to acknowledge their existence. Though I could easily see Turkey renege on this over time, any relations would continue to be rocky and unpredictable (a la Armenia).
I would assume Assad's Syria would follow a similar path. Though unlike Turkey, Syria would not be a major threat towards Kurdistan. Depending on whether the Syrian Civil War happens in your timeline, I would suspect that Kurdistan would support the Syrian Kurds against ISIS.
I could see Iran being the friendliest of Kurdistan's neighbors, as both nations would be Iranic-speaking nations. I don't believe they would be close allies or anything of the sort, but definitely good by comparison.
- LOL! Leave out key details. XP
- Despite that, I believe my original estimates stand. Turkey and Syria, regardless of their level of democracy, would still take the sudden appearance of Kurdistan with caution. Being too friendly could jeopardize their own Kurdish minority areas, so best to be... Armenia. XP. Sorry that this has become a joke, but I seriously couldn't have thought of a better analogy than this. XP
- Iran would likely be more friendly. Since both are Iranian-speaking, I doubt friendly relations would be as "devastating" (for lack of a better word) as it would be for the other two. In fact, if Iran is more democratic, I could see the two emerge as allies. Hope this helps out. -- NuclearVacuum 17:24, June 17, 2016 (UTC)
Since I have you, I would love to get your opinion on a scenario I've been working on for my timeline Russian America. It involves Chile loosing the War of the Confederation and subsequently refocusing its efforts in Patagonia.
My scenario would have the British and the French fully supporting the Peru-Bolivian Confederation during the war (similar to the French blockade of Argentina). Chile would be unable to fight the Confederation effectively (as in OTL) and is forced to surrender. The Confederation wins the Atacama Region (and its silver mines).
With the prosperous north now removed from their territory, I feel it would be far more likely that Chileans would accelerate their exploration and settlement of Patagonia (if anything to secure new economic means). Given that Argentina would be going through civil wars during this time, I've been debating how much of Patagonia Chile could secure before the Argentinians get their acts together.
You've mentioned before that those of the Cuyo region of Argentina contemplated joining Chile. Because Chile started their expansion from the south and made their way north, I don't see them going beyond the Colorado River (and even that might be a stretch).
The two big questions I have for you is do you believe Patagonian expansion would be a likely outcome of loosing the Atacama, and how far could Chile realistically expand into Patagonia. I would appreciate any help you can give. Thank you. -- NuclearVacuum 01:26, June 16, 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your feedback.
- I most definitely would see Chile trade with Russian America and beyond. In fact, I'm very certain that Alaska and Chile (ATL) would have a very close friendship to this day. Though this mostly comes from both nations having an identical climate and geography, which would individually shape the cultures of each nation to be very similar to one another.
- I currently have an addition to this scenario that I'd love to get your opinion on. I've read that a border war between Argentina and Chile almost happened. Assuming this were to indeed happen, would Chile be able to defeat Argentina? If so, could this open the door to Chile demanding more territory? Similar to the Mexican Cessions following the Mexican-American War.
- I've made a quick map to show what I currently have in mind. Does this seem too optimistic? -- NuclearVacuum 05:32, June 16, 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much.
I do wish to clarify something (if you don't mind). The reason I've been thinking about having the Colorado and Desaguadero rivers as the possible border is because this would also give the major areas of Cuyo over to Chile. So just to clarify, are you saying that the Colorado river is too much? Just curious. -- NuclearVacuum 20:49, June 16, 2016 (UTC)
- No need to worry. I simply wish to get a much detail as I can, so do forgive me for being specific. So the Colorado-Desaguadero could be possible, but only if Chile were to win it in a war. Is this what you are telling me? Again, do forgive my bluntness. -- NuclearVacuum 21:43, June 16, 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much once again. ^_^
I do have two more questions related to Chile, and than that should be it. The first being whether a larger Chile might become a federation over time or remain a centralized state. The second being Chile's response to the Falkland Islands. -- NuclearVacuum 22:21, June 16, 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you once again. Decentralization sounds reasonable enough. I also love the idea of moving the capital over time.
- Yeah. I was under the assumption that Chile would acquire Argentina's claims to the islands following the war (since Argentina wouldn't be nearby anymore). Honestly, I was more interested on what Chile's relations would be for the islands. Whether they'd wish to claim them or leave the British to do as they pleased. But if you believe Chile would have no interest in them, than I see no issue with that. ^_^ -- NuclearVacuum 00:03, June 17, 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for additional input.
The primary reason I have the entire "Atacama Region" being annexed has to do more with disputed borders than anything else. From what I've read, Peru was keen on getting as much territory as possible (just ask Ecuador). Because Spanish documents stated that the norther border of Colonial Chile was the "Atacama Desert," Peru would use this to justify a larger land grab following their victory ATL (with the silver being the icing on the cake). So it has to do less with the contemporary region than it does to vague colonial borders.
As for the presidents, I would love to see what you have in mind. One thing I would like to add is that Chile would (obviously) have a larger population. I also feel confident that many Argentinians (OTL) might choose to settle in Chile (ATL) because of its differing boundaries. I would be more than happy to look into this if you'd like. -- NuclearVacuum 17:35, June 17, 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah. Combining alternate history and genealogy can be very frustrating at times, but I've been getting the hang of it as of lately. I've spent the past year looking for potential Alaskans and it has been both fun and infuriating. XP
- As for determining the alternate ancestry of Argentines and Chileans, it should be just as "easy" to research on. I'm unable to find any ancestral maps of Argentina, but I have come across census maps from 1914 which shows each province based on the largest foreign-born population. The southernmost provinces were dominated by British and Germans, while the north was dominated by Italians. My guess is that more Italian Argentines would remain Argentine, while more German Argentines could become Chileans.
- As of now (using this criteria), I believe Néstor Kirchner would more likely be Chilean ATL (based on his ancestry). His wife (Cristina Fernández de Kirchner) would more likely remain Argentine. This is not a perfect science, but a benchmark to work from.
- In regards to the Atacama, it may be more complicated than that. My best guess is that some of the Chileans who resided there during the transfer would choose to return to Chile, while others would wish to remain for the mines. Those that remained could, thereby, remain citizens of Tahuantinsuyo. It will need to be a case-by-case basis, but I feel this will be the most likely outcome.
- Do forgive me, as I'm not familiar with Chilean politics (aside from Allende, Bachelet, and Pinochet [ironically all of French descent XD]). But based on the alternate path the nation could take, I believe your criteria of presidents looks very appropriate. You are more than welcome to add Kirchner as a potential president if you wish, but do as you wish. I look forward to seeing what else you have in mind. -- NuclearVacuum 17:14, June 18, 2016 (UTC)
Glad to hear you like Kirchner. I will do some more research tomorrow to find more potential Chileans.
LOL! I was going to ask you the same question. XP
My guess is that it would happen either in the 1860s or the 1870s. It was during this time that Argentina began to encroach on Patagonia and likely the best time to spark a conflict. An alternative could be to have it occur as a consequence of Cuyo leaving to join Chile, with Patagonian expansion being a side-project (a la the Mexican-American War). I'm also aware that the Paraguayan War would take place during this time, so I'm not sure whether it should be before or after this. I'm open to any suggestions. -- NuclearVacuum 02:26, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your input. More than one war sounds appropriate here. A war over Cuyo during the 1850s and a war over Patagonia around the 1870s.
- I'd also thought you'd love to see a WIP map I've made for Chile. Nothing special, but just to give a general idea of what is going on. Hope you like it. -- NuclearVacuum 23:28, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your reply.
Sarmiento seems to be an appropriate individual. According to his ancestry, I believe his family (if not him) may choose to remain Chilean upon the transfer. Feel free to use him if you wish. As for the others, I will need to look into each of their biographies, but so far they all look great.
To be honest, I'm not too sure how Chile would be affected. As of now, I have been playing around with two possibilities for South America, though I haven't given them much thought as of now. The first being that Salvador Allende gains more inspiration and support from Alaska's Vasily Kardash (who essentially is similar to Allende politically) and he is able to complete his presidency without a coup. No Pinochet and no communist takeover. Ironically, this would go against one of your timelines, so I do hope you aren't annoyed with me. XP
The second scenario is that Peru-Bolivia becomes a fascist dictatorship during the Cold War, aligning themselves with Japan and Spain. This may lead to conflict with its neighbors (particularly Ecuador). Though I haven't worked out much for this idea, so it may be changed over time.
- LOL. If Allende were to gain more support and influence from Kardash, than I could see Chile doing alright in the long run. Though socialism would be greatly pushed, I could see compromises being [reluctantly] encouraged. I could see socialism being more accepted as a consequence, though likely no more than OTL (if that makes any sense). I may be a socialist, but I'm not "that socialist" XP.
- It should be noted that my Fascist Peru-Bolivia would not make them an Axis Power during WWII. Rather it would make them an unaligned Franco-like state during the Cold War. I foresee them having good relations with Japan because both would've been on the Allied Powers' side during WWII (not to mention Fujimori). I also see them attacking and [potentially] occupying Ecuador because of the border disputes. In the case of Chile, I don't really see why a war would break out. The War of the Pacific would be avoided, meaning no Bolivian Irredentism. The Confederation would also have won key areas from Chile following the War of the Confederation, so I don't see why they would wish to attack them in the future.
- Now that I think about it, I do have one scenario in mind for such a conflict happening during the Cold War. Ironically, it involves Allende. Perhaps the Fascists in Peru-Bolivia become paranoid over a theoretical "communist invasion" and decide to attack Chile to "liberate them from communism." I could see both Japan and the USA covertly backing them (a la OTL), and potentially an alliance between Peru-Bolivia and Peron's Argentina. As for the outcome... I could see it going in any direction. Either Peru-Bolivia succeed and install a non-communist government (Pinochet?) or they loose to Chile. How does that sound to you? -- NuclearVacuum 19:33, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
Do forgive me for my delayed response. I've been dealing with a troll here for the past few days.
Thank you so much for your new list of presidents. Like I mentioned before, I wish to look at each one individually before I go any further, but they all look great. Though if I might add, wouldn't the Chilean presidency remain six-years without a Pinochet Coup? Also, I'm a little dismayed that Bachelet isn't on the list, but that's my personal opinion (please don't take it seriously ;P).
As for Peru-Bolivia, I think I've found some convincing evidence that they could become fascist here (Peru almost elected a Mussolini doppelganger in 1936 [OTL]). Despite this, I genuinely don't see them having any irredentist feelings towards Chile. The Confederation would've already won the majority of the territory they would've claimed (plus more). Not to say that they wouldn't be interested in gaining more territory, just the mentality of "give us back our coastline" (a la Bolivia) wouldn't be the driving force. If anything, I would believe Argentina would have more anger towards Chile here.
I still feel like the best case scenario for a continental war would be my "crush communism" idea. I suppose the loss of Chilean territory (either to the Confederation or an aligned Argentina) could become a propaganda piece. Given how successful Chile has been in the past, I could definitely see them holding off the Confederation (and Argentina, if they choose to get involved). The Confederation's loss could be the final nail in removing fascism there.