New Deal Coalition Retained Pt II: World on Fire

[Prince Daemon Targaryen]

101th Congress​

House Leadership-

Speaker: Roy Cohn (R-NY14)
Majority Leader: George W. Bush (R-TX19)
Majority Whip: David Dreier (R-CA33)

Minority Leader: Daniel Inouye (D-HI2)
Minority Whip: Edward Boland (D-MA3)

Opposition Leader: Jim Oberstar (P/FL-MN8)
Opposition Whip: Dennis Kucinich (P-OH15)


Senate Leadership-

President Pro Tempore: Strom Thurmond (D-SC)
Majority Leader: Wayne Owens (D-UT)
Majority Whip: Ron Wyden (D-OR)


Minority Leader: William F. Quinn (R-HI)
Minority Whip: Harrison Schmidt (R-NM)

Opposition Leader: Dick Lamm (P-CO)
Opposition Whip: Byron Dorgan (P/NPL-ND)

(Peach: GOP and Prog, Green: Dem and Prog, Light Purple: Conservative and Dem, Pink: GOP and Indy)​

Alabama-
2. Fob James (D)
3. Jeremiah Denton (R)

Alaska-
2. Steve Cowper (D)
3. Clark Greuning (D)

Arizona-
1. Cesar Chavez (D)
3. Samuel Goddard (D)

Arkansas-
3. Dale Bumpers (D)
2. Bill Alexander (D)

California-
1. Edwin Meese (R)
3. Pete McCloskey (R)

Colorado-

2. Dick Lamm (P)
3. William Armstrong (R)

Connecticut-

1. Prescott Bush Jr. (R)
3. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (P)

Delaware-

1. Mike Castle (R)
2. Joe Biden (I)

Florida-

1. Bob Martinez (D)
3. Buddy McKay (D)

Georgia-

2. John Lewis (R)
3. Larry MacDonald (D)

Hawaii-

1. William F. Quinn (R)
3. Patsy Mink (P)

Idaho-

3. Butch Otter (R)
2. Roger Fairchild (R)

Illinois-

3. Dan Rostenkowski (D)
2. Harold Washington (R)

Indiana-

1. Lee Hamilton (D)
3. Evan Bayh (D)

Iowa-

2. Chuck Grassley (R)
3. Tom Harkin (P)

Kansas-

2. Jan Meyers (R)
3. Bob Dole (R)

Kentucky-

2. Charlie Owen (D)
3. Steve Beshear (D)

Louisiana-

2. David Treen (R)
3. Fox McKeithen (D)

Maine-

2. Susan Collins (R)
1. William Cohen (R)

Maryland-

1. John Glenn Beall Jr. (R)
3. William T. Coleman Jr. (R)

Massachusetts-

1. John Kerry (D)
2. Mitt Romney (R)

Michigan-

2. David Bonior (D)
1. Fred Upton (R)

Minnesota-

2. Rudy Boschwitz (R)
1. Clark McGregor (R)

Mississippi-

2. Medgar Evers (R)
1. Thad Cochran (R)

Missouri-

1. John Ashcroft (R)
3. Mel Carnahan (D)

Montana-

1. Pat Williams (D)
2. Max Baucus (D)

Nebraska-

1. Bob Kerrey (D)
2. Maxine Moul (D)

Nevada-

3. Richard Bryan (D)
1. Jim Santini (D)

New Hampshire-

3. John Durkin (D)
2. Steve Merrill (R)

New Jersey-

2. Frank Lautenberg (D)
1. Ruth Bader Ginsburg (P)

New Mexico-

2. Roberto Mondragón (D)
1. Harrison Schmitt (R)

New York-

1. Hugh Carey (D)
3. James Buckley (C)

North Carolina-

3. Bob Etheridge (D)
2. Jesse Helms (D)

North Dakota-

3. William L. Guy (D)
1. Byron Dorgan (P-NPL)

Ohio-

1. Jerry Springer (D)
3. John Glenn (D)

Oklahoma-

2. Dewey F. Bartlett (R)
3. Wes Watkins (D)

Oregon-

2. Ron Wyden (D)
3. Tony Meeker (R)

Pennsylvania-

1. Arlen Specter (R)
3. Barbara Hafer (R)

Rhode Island-

1. Fernand St. Germain (D)
2. John Chafee (R)

South Carolina-

2. Strom Thurmond (D)
3. Carroll Campbell Jr. (R)

South Dakota-

2. Bill Janklow (R)
3. Tom Daschle (D)

Tennessee-

1. Al Gore Jr. (D)
2. Lamar Alexander (R)

Texas-

1. Kent Hance (D)
2. Antonin Scalia (R)

Utah-

1. Orrin Hatch (R)
3. Wayne Owens (D)

Vermont-

3. Roger MacBride (R)
1. Peter P. Smith (R)

Virginia-

1. Pat Robertson (D)
2. John Warner (R)

Washington-

3. Booth Gardner (D)
1. Slade Gorton (R)

West Virginia-

2. Ken Hechler (D)
1. Robert Byrd (D)

Wisconsin-

1. Dave Obey (P)
3. Tommy Thompson (R)

Wyoming-

2. John P. Vinich (D)
1. Rodger McDaniel (D)

 

[IntellectuallyHonestRhino]

Can Rumsfeld be harsher than them?

Sorry for late response but yes he can. No power can stop him once the war is over. At least now. Seems like for the next 30 years America will dominate the world. Pax Americana seems to be the new phase ITTL.

And there's a big difference between territorial changes and genocides. So Rumsfeld would not be harsher than Hitler and Stalin in the sense of genocide by any stretch. So personally, no, but that has nothing to do with territory. Honestly, being a bit of a douche will probably occur, for the U.S. "just can". And sending the message that you can do whatever you want is a message dominant powers send to keep people in line. And couldn't Rumsfeld merely state that he is changing the world order that bred Communism to its height in the first place?

Now I'm having weird images of European leaders kissing Rummy's feet at the Oval Office …

Bow to your dark lord Rumsfeld!!!!!! Muhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! Reagan can't save you no-

Not this time, Rummy.


Chorus: It's Reagan!


Yes it is me! And now, I'm going to have to stop you your plans to rule the world with your iron Rummy fist!

Oh Reagan, what did I tell you about messing with Ivy League men?!

The only Ivy League you have left is Poison Ivy!


Kapow!

Kaboom!

Smash!


Arghh, you win this time Ronny! But I'll get you next time!


NEXT TIME ON: SUPER REAGAN!


Monsanto!

 

[IntellectuallyHonestRhino]

1. Thad Cochran (R)

Wait Thad Cochran is a Republican ITTL?!?! The dude is a closet segregationist!

Haley Barbour makes much more sense. I recommend you replace Thad Cochran with Haley Barbour. There is no way Medgar Evers would work with Thad Cochran. In fact, Thad Cochran probably would run against Evers. Cochran became a Republican in 1967, post the Civil Rights Act under Johnson. That is butterflied away. If Thurmond is a Democrat, Cochran is definitely a Democrat. So too Trent Lott.

 

[Alpha-King98760]

Bow to your dark lord Rumsfeld!!!!!! Muhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! Reagan can't save you no-

Not this time, Rummy.


Chorus: It's Reagan!


Yes it is me! And now, I'm going to have to stop you your plans to rule the world with your iron Rummy fist!

Oh Reagan, what did I tell you about messing with Ivy League men?!

The only Ivy League you have left is Poison Ivy!


Kapow!

Kaboom!

Smash!


Arghh, you win this time Ronny! But I'll get you next time!


NEXT TIME ON: SUPER REAGAN!


Monsanto!

Ra ra ra ra ra Reagan! Reagan!!

 

[Prince Daemon Targaryen]

Wait Thad Cochran is a Republican ITTL?!?! The dude is a closet segregationist!

Haley Barbour makes much more sense. I recommend you replace Thad Cochran with Haley Barbour. There is no way Medgar Evers would work with Thad Cochran. In fact, Thad Cochran probably would run against Evers. Cochran became a Republican in 1967, post the Civil Rights Act under Johnson. That is butterflied away. If Thurmond is a Democrat, Cochran is definitely a Democrat. So too Trent Lott.

Trent Lott is definitely a Democrat

 

[IntellectuallyHonestRhino]

Trent Lott is definitely a Democrat

And by that metric so is That Cochran. Dude is modern day Jefferson Davis.

 

[Bulldoggus]

Wait Thad Cochran is a Republican ITTL?!?! The dude is a closet segregationist!

Closet?

 

[Midwestern Shadows]

Pax Americana seems to be the new phase ITTL.

Perhaps in the immediate future and even sometime afterwards, but China and its bloc definitely stands a chance of gobbling up the Russian states and maybe a few of the more chaotic parts of Asia if reconstruction/whatever process ensures that Russia will no longer be a threat messes up somewhere.

I'd think a Marshall Plan might be in order and not a Treaty of Versailles if NATO and Co. seriously want a lasting peace in Eurasia.

 

[Bulldoggus]

I'd think a Marshall Plan might be in order and not a Treaty of Versailles if NATO and Co. seriously want a lasting peace in Eurasia.

I could do a whole hot take on how the conditions (namely "Shock Therapy") imposed on the former Eastern Bloc after the Cold War were in many ways a punitive peace settlement just like Versailles...

 

[Lazer_Pages]

If the US runs around arbitrarily redrawing borders, they will just end up destabilizing an already unstable world. I mean seriously, y'all treat this like it's some sort of sporting event, where the US is supposed to screw with borders for no reason what'so ever. Like seriously, what reason do they have for redrawing the borders of Hungary and Romania, other then "rule of cool"?

Neither of those countries helped the US during the war, both of them remained committed to the Warsaw pact long after more pragmatic countries had jumped ship, and the US stands to gain literally nothing by pissing them off. I get that this is a world where imperialism and territorial expansion are much more popular then OTL, but in all cases of it happening there is a clearly defined reason for it happening. The US just going 'lol, guess we better redraw this shit cause Murica" is not a realistic reason for it too happen.

 

[IntellectuallyHonestRhino]

Like seriously, what reason do they have for redrawing the borders of Hungary and Romania, other then "rule of cool"?

Because a loyal Hungary would be extraordinarily helpful. I really think a lot of people are forgetting the 56 Revolution in Hungary, which in fact began the downfall of Communism in Europe. So in terms of ethnic relations.

Also, how do you think Americans view Romania ITTL? Look at all the battles. They are the most helpful ally of the Russians. This is not good for their image. So garner an ally that can easily be absorbed into the Freyist matrix.

y'all treat this like it's some sort of sporting event, where the US is supposed to screw with borders for no reason what'so ever.

Let's be honest; if you satirize colonial empires then to a certain extent much of this is correct. The amount of "let's screw our foes" in history in tremendous.

One reason to do so (and I wonder why giving Hungary regions it historically had is any more screwery than what occurred in OTL in Trianon, for at least giving back the Hungarian majority border region in Slovakia to Hungary. Transylvania I agree is more controversial.)

Look, as whole world war occurred. Changes are going to occur. I'm really starting to get curious as to the now hostile reaction to my idea. You think what is going to happen in Bosnia is going to be prettier than giving Hungarian majority regions in Slovakia on the border to Hungary?! Now that's screwing with borders. But is not bad on @The Congressman's part for those are all real claims made by Serbian nationalists thus them demanding that territory in exchange for support makes sense.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that I, once again, am whole heartedly confused by this reaction. I get it, there are disagreements. Do I think it makes sense for Hungary to get its whole territory that it had 600 years ago? No! That map was more for fun (I can't photoshop a perfect map). But if we are fine with Serbia getting parts of present day Croatia, we should be fine with Hungary getting Transylvania.

Please let me know exactly what you are diametrically opposed to. Exactly. There may be some confusion, for having all of the lands of the crown of St. Stephen is absurd. We are on the same page. But Transylvania and Southern Slovakia? That's not messing with borders any more than Greater Serbia. Only difference is Serbia gives military help earlier on as of now. Who knows, Hungary could join in soon for this to work (and doesn't even have to!).

 

[IntellectuallyHonestRhino]

Look, I'm fine if my idea doesn't happen. But I don't like the accusation that it is crazy (at least that is the latest perception I am getting from the latest response).

 

[IntellectuallyHonestRhino]

US stands to gain literally nothing by pissing them off

They do. Sending a message. Sending a message that things have changed. No one in this equation can even think of messing with the U.S.

There is no benefit keeping things the same. There is no Soviet Union to trouble you, no British French or Spanish colonial empire to keep an eye on you, there's only you and your dominance (as America). The world needs to know that there has been a dramatic change. No Cold War, no competing powers. What do they have to gain to keep the system intact? They are forging a new one, and other nations have got to accept it.

And this will allow for, yes, resentment, which indeed will make things interesting in the future. I have no reason to believe that President Rumsfeld is dedicated to making the "world a better place". This seems more in character. It's President Rumsfeld, not President Clark Kent.


And once again, why would D.C. care about angering the Romanians and Slovaks anymore than the Bosniaks or Croats?

 

[IntellectuallyHonestRhino]

The US just going 'lol, guess we better redraw this shit cause Murica" is not a realistic reason for it too happen.

Again, it is to signal a new world order. Germany since WW1 has never controlled Gdansk (was Danzig in 1908). The age of a contested globe is gone, at least for now.

 

[IntellectuallyHonestRhino]

If the US runs around arbitrarily redrawing borders

Southern Slovakia and Transylvania is not arbitrary. Rather, it is the dream of the Hungarian nationalist right to control those territories (in fact many want all of Slovakia due to historical purposes, but to me that's just stupid). They see them as vital regions of the old Hungarian Kingdom that once again briefly lived in Austria Hungary.

I don't ask this to be rude, since for example my knowledge on the Baltic is practically nil for example. There are so many regions I have not studied, and I so want to learn more about them. But in sincere curiosity, are you well informed about the Central European ethnic conflicts and their historical background? The only reason I ask this is your use of the word arbitrary. Again, I don't say this in a mean way. I am sure there are things you know 10000x more than me and you could utterly humiliate me on in history (and I'm not saying I'm humiliating you here; just emphasizing that I am not being braggadocios or sneering here), but am just curious.


P.S. I also want to emphasize that I also suggested giving the Tatra mountains in Northern Slovakia to the Polish. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[Prince Daemon Targaryen]

The goal of the Allies is to ensure that Communism never rears it's ugly head and to undo the Post-Yalta, Post-Potsdam world order. The goal of the German-Italian-Polish bloc is not only to return to Weimar boundaries but also to structure the soon to be Freyist nations in Eastern Europe in such a way as none of them can be as powerful as each of the three. They may throw a sop of territory to various states but they will mostly respect national boundaries - although certain territories may be given unilateral independence

 

[Lazer_Pages]

I understand why Hungary would want Transylvania back, the point I'm making is that the US has next to no incentive to provide any support for Hungary regarding this. And to touch this border would be arbitrary, the US has shown next to no interest regarding the border, and to suddenly mess with it would from a narrative perspective not make much sense.

The other thing to note is that touching this border is a bad idea, one almost as bad as allowing Greater Serbia to exist.

A return to the 1942 borders would piss off Romania, create a border that is completely artificial, and the only people who would like it, Hungarian nationalists, would be angry that they didn't get all of Transylvania.

Giving Hungary all of Transylvania would result in Hungary having a massive, pissed off Romanian minority. While forcing an independent Transylvania would create a state with little to no national identity, and a population that would only be interested in going to Hungary or Romania.

If all the alternatives offer so little gain for the west, why would they persue them? There's a difference between allowing Ethnically Hungarian and Polish areas of Slovakia go to there respective countries, and remaking a border for no other reason then ancient claims.

 

[IntellectuallyHonestRhino]

I understand why Hungary would want Transylvania back, the point I'm making is that the US has next to no incentive to provide any support for Hungary regarding this.

Ok I disagree, but that's fine. Agree to disagree.


Personally if I were a Rummy advisor I would suggest splitting Transylvania (Romania's not that small; you do want to weaken them) and give some of Transylvania to Hungary.

A return to the 1942 borders would piss off Romania, create a border that is completely artificial,

How is it artificial?

Giving Hungary all of Transylvania would result in Hungary having a massive, pissed off Romanian minority.

I agree and if I were a Rummy advisor I would not support it. Personally, I think Romanian Transylvania makes sense in OTL.

would piss off Romania

And why does the U.S. care? The Russian people are also pissed with this, and so are the Croats and the Bosniaks. This does not matter in the slightest.

the only people who would like it, Hungarian nationalist

I think Hungarians in general would like it. It's not only Romanian far right nationalists who supports Transylvania being Romania.

remaking a border for no other reason then ancient claims.

Not that ancient, just a century old. Also, the Slovak-Hungarian border is just Hungarian. In real life, I support Transylvania being Romanian. In fact, I think much of Trianon made sense. But, I do think giving Southern Slovakia which is the Hungarian region of Slovakia to Czechoslovakia does not make sense on an ethnic ground. It was just giving mountain regions to Prague so that Hungary could not mobilize with a strategic region for military matters.

If all the alternatives offer so little gain for the west, why would they persue them?

I've stated reasons why, and if you disagree with them, no problem. I am not saying I am right. But tell me specifically why instead of just saying "no reason". I gave reasons why I think they'd do it.

 

[IntellectuallyHonestRhino]

The other thing to note is that touching this border is a bad idea, one almost as bad as allowing Greater Serbia to exist.

Well at least you disagree with Greater Serbia, so you are not being hypocritical. Glad to hear this (really am, not being sarcastic, and am glad you responded to that question of mine on Serbia).

 

[IntellectuallyHonestRhino]

If anyone responds to a point I make (on the specific issue), I will respond to it, but I want to draw a line between a debate and what could turn into a online battle. I don't want to accidently create a heated mess just because I want to prove how right I think I am. So on this specific debate on this thread I will not be making any more points.