This is set in a world where the Soviet Union doesn't form and WW2 is fought against a Berlin-Moscow-Rome Axis. I wanted to make the opposite map (Axis victory) too, but I don't know if I'll do.
Map Thread XIX
- Thread starter water123
- Start date
- Status
This is set in a world where the Soviet Union doesn't form and WW2 is fought against a Berlin-Moscow-Rome Axis. I wanted to make the opposite map (Axis victory) too, but I don't know if I'll do.
Wouldn’t Scotland be… upset at that designation? And therefore wouldn’t the flag remove St. George’s Cross? An argument could be made for the flag as-is, but with a thicker Cross of St. Patrick banded in the white of St. Andrew’s Cross, but there’s also this idea:
Philip
Donor
About the flags:
1) Why is England's St George not only on the flag but also the dominant feature?
2) Interesting. I've never imagined a Magyar-dominated state on the British Isles.
Yeah, that’s the thing. If I was by my desktop I’d do up a more traditional version.
I know that was a joke, but OP had no control over that. That's the legitimate flag of Republican movements in Great Britain, not some flag the creator came up with.
If, by "Republican," you're referring to the Irish colors, then there's nothing really "republican" about them. On the Irish flag, the green stands for Catholics while the orange stands for Protestants, with the white bar intending to mean the peaceful coexistence between the two hostile groups. There's nothing inherently Republican about that.
Philip
Donor
By republican (small r) I mean the Irish tricolor that was created for the Irish nationalists and based on the flag of the French Republic. The association of the colors with Ireland is unmistakably tied to republicanism. Whatever meaning the republicans assign to the colors does not diminish the fact that they are the colors of the republican movement.
The heraldic colors for Ireland, blue and gold, are well established. The red and white of St Patrick's cross are more recent, but still associated with the monarchy. Either set would be more historically appropriate.
Skallagrim
Banned
North America in a world where the Reformation was avoided, and Europe remained undividedly Catholic. Colonisation of the New World, when it was discovered, involved a lot of Papal arbitration. Instead of just drawing lines on the map, claims based on ownership of entire watersheds became very common. (Also, the School of Salamanca ended up influencing policy in the long run, leading to better treatment of the native Americans, a lot more ethnic mixing, and an end to slavery roughly a century earlier than in OTL.)
Eventually, the American colonies became first self-governing, and then independent partners to the nations of Europe. After some initial hurdles that had to be taken, the idea of tighter bonds between the nations of North America began to gain traction. The establishment of lasting peace in Europe was a great boon here. Although the American nations had, by common treaty, kept out of the great European Wars, the animosity between their respective parent nations would always be a cultural stumbling block in the way of tighter bonds between all American peoples. With Europe putting its violent past behind it, America could likewise look to a future of strengthened bonds.
This began with economic treaties, and has in recent years culminated in a long-awaited dream: a Grand Concordance. One currency, open borders, free trade, a common court of justice, and increased military co-operation (in addition to the standing mutual defence pact). The signing will take place at midnight, this coming New Year's Eve. Directrice Générale Dominique Herrera-Dumoulin of La Louisiane (who will certainly become the first Chief of the American Council) has expressed her joy at this culmination of her life-long efforts to bring about this unification. She has good reason to be satisfied: all national legislatures are explicitly in favour of ratification. By next summer, all Americans will -- in a sense -- be countrymen. What is to be established tomorrow night may formally be a mere confederation of sovereign states... but if the proceedings in Europe are any indication, then we may all live to see North America evolve into a union indivisible.
(No legend for this one, I'm afraid; I implore you to use your imagination.)
Eventually, the American colonies became first self-governing, and then independent partners to the nations of Europe. After some initial hurdles that had to be taken, the idea of tighter bonds between the nations of North America began to gain traction. The establishment of lasting peace in Europe was a great boon here. Although the American nations had, by common treaty, kept out of the great European Wars, the animosity between their respective parent nations would always be a cultural stumbling block in the way of tighter bonds between all American peoples. With Europe putting its violent past behind it, America could likewise look to a future of strengthened bonds.
This began with economic treaties, and has in recent years culminated in a long-awaited dream: a Grand Concordance. One currency, open borders, free trade, a common court of justice, and increased military co-operation (in addition to the standing mutual defence pact). The signing will take place at midnight, this coming New Year's Eve. Directrice Générale Dominique Herrera-Dumoulin of La Louisiane (who will certainly become the first Chief of the American Council) has expressed her joy at this culmination of her life-long efforts to bring about this unification. She has good reason to be satisfied: all national legislatures are explicitly in favour of ratification. By next summer, all Americans will -- in a sense -- be countrymen. What is to be established tomorrow night may formally be a mere confederation of sovereign states... but if the proceedings in Europe are any indication, then we may all live to see North America evolve into a union indivisible.
Maybe a traditionalist White Russia facing off against a nightmarish Nazi Empire, with futurist Italy being forced to hold it's nose and ally Moscow?
Question though: what exactly is the ideological conflict between Europe and America? My first though was a colonialist Europe vs a
Alright, looks like I've got a lot of questions to answer. I apologize in advance if any of these responses aren't the most coherent, I'm very sleep-deprived right now.
Idaho only survived due to it grabbing some federal nukes at the height of its territorial control and managing to keep ahold of enough of them to be a problem afterwards (it wasn't even going to be included in the Treaty of St. John until its leadership threatened to nuke everyone else if they weren't recognized), and the West Virginians only have de facto independence due to the Appalachian military being severely weakened by the war and unable to root out the white nationalists in the state- as stated in the map, the Americans and Appalachians already have plans to crush them once and for all together, since relations between the Americans and Appalachians are surprisingly chill twenty years post-war. Idaho is very unstable and one of the most-hated countries on the planet, though, and it's probably not going to last much longer than another decade or two without collapsing in on itself, at which point the Americans will sweep in and occupy it. As for the anticapitalist terrorism, the nuking of Silicon Valley and Seattle were the only major instances of anticapitalist terrorism during the war. It was going to be something less extreme initially, but I got the idea of the suitcase bombs from an anticapitalist I saw on another site who was ranting about wanting to "nuke all the billionaires." I was going to have a few instances of nuclear terrorism carried out by neo-Nazis at some point during the war as well, but I ended up not including them. (There were a lot of ideas I had that didn't make the cut, such as a short-lived Finnish-American state in upper Michigan, a UN intervention in the Midwest towards the end of the war, Puerto Rico getting quietly occupied by Cuba during the initial chaos period, the war spreading into Mexico and Canada as well, and the war ending with America being completely reunified.)
You have to keep in mind that Texas had been severely battered by the war and spent a lot of the first year trying to put down rebels along the coastline, as well as that it was surrounded on all sides by hostile factions for most of the war. That, combined with the Sacramento-Boston government firebombing the Texan oil fields and that pro-reunification sentiments were starting to simmer, resulted in the Texans reluctantly accepting the territorial losses in the Treaty of St. John after a lot of heated arguments between the Texan representatives and the delegates from the other factions.
I explicitly stated that I didn't want my map to start any arguments about current politics, and then an argument started anyway. There's probably a joke about irony or something there.
I did borrow the ideas of a pseudolegitimist Texas from that map, but I didn't consciously take any of those other ideas from it. I had been browsing through a lot of Second American Civil War scenarios before I got the idea of making one of my own, so the other influences were probably subconscious.
AK's right on all counts, though war weariness was the biggest factor. (It's a shame, really- if the Boston-Sacramento faction and the D.C. faction had worked together, they could have completely reunited America in another year or two.) As for the other U.S. territories, Hawaii joined the Sacramento government a few months in, while America's other territories initially were under the de facto control of the D.C. legitimists who would eventually become Appalachia and were ceded to the Americans in the Treaty of St. John, since Appalachia is landlocked.
Exactly, and as I mentioned above, the odds of the countries like Idaho collapsing in the future is very high, which the Americans were aware of.
The more cynical guess is the correct one. That's one of the main reasons the Boston-Sacramento regime agreed to let the conservative states join them with the promise of autonomy- that way, they wouldn't be able to influence national politics, and they could be gradually liberalized and then readmitted as normal states. The United States of America might be the best country to emerge from the SACW, but they're still not exactly the good guys- they're pretty morally gray, especially in the earlier days. At least they're only going after anyone who's not socially left of center (for pretty much everything else, they don't really care as long as they're not outright objectivists or whatever), and the worst thing they're doing to them is just imprisoning them (and prison labor was classified as slavery a few years post-war, so jail is marginally less bad than it was pre-war) or throwing them into one of the autonomous conservative states.
Idaho only survived due to it grabbing some federal nukes at the height of its territorial control and managing to keep ahold of enough of them to be a problem afterwards (it wasn't even going to be included in the Treaty of St. John until its leadership threatened to nuke everyone else if they weren't recognized), and the West Virginians only have de facto independence due to the Appalachian military being severely weakened by the war and unable to root out the white nationalists in the state- as stated in the map, the Americans and Appalachians already have plans to crush them once and for all together, since relations between the Americans and Appalachians are surprisingly chill twenty years post-war. Idaho is very unstable and one of the most-hated countries on the planet, though, and it's probably not going to last much longer than another decade or two without collapsing in on itself, at which point the Americans will sweep in and occupy it. As for the anticapitalist terrorism, the nuking of Silicon Valley and Seattle were the only major instances of anticapitalist terrorism during the war. It was going to be something less extreme initially, but I got the idea of the suitcase bombs from an anticapitalist I saw on another site who was ranting about wanting to "nuke all the billionaires." I was going to have a few instances of nuclear terrorism carried out by neo-Nazis at some point during the war as well, but I ended up not including them. (There were a lot of ideas I had that didn't make the cut, such as a short-lived Finnish-American state in upper Michigan, a UN intervention in the Midwest towards the end of the war, Puerto Rico getting quietly occupied by Cuba during the initial chaos period, the war spreading into Mexico and Canada as well, and the war ending with America being completely reunified.)
You have to keep in mind that Texas had been severely battered by the war and spent a lot of the first year trying to put down rebels along the coastline, as well as that it was surrounded on all sides by hostile factions for most of the war. That, combined with the Sacramento-Boston government firebombing the Texan oil fields and that pro-reunification sentiments were starting to simmer, resulted in the Texans reluctantly accepting the territorial losses in the Treaty of St. John after a lot of heated arguments between the Texan representatives and the delegates from the other factions.
I explicitly stated that I didn't want my map to start any arguments about current politics, and then an argument started anyway. There's probably a joke about irony or something there.
I did borrow the ideas of a pseudolegitimist Texas from that map, but I didn't consciously take any of those other ideas from it. I had been browsing through a lot of Second American Civil War scenarios before I got the idea of making one of my own, so the other influences were probably subconscious.
AK's right on all counts, though war weariness was the biggest factor. (It's a shame, really- if the Boston-Sacramento faction and the D.C. faction had worked together, they could have completely reunited America in another year or two.) As for the other U.S. territories, Hawaii joined the Sacramento government a few months in, while America's other territories initially were under the de facto control of the D.C. legitimists who would eventually become Appalachia and were ceded to the Americans in the Treaty of St. John, since Appalachia is landlocked.
Exactly, and as I mentioned above, the odds of the countries like Idaho collapsing in the future is very high, which the Americans were aware of.
The more cynical guess is the correct one. That's one of the main reasons the Boston-Sacramento regime agreed to let the conservative states join them with the promise of autonomy- that way, they wouldn't be able to influence national politics, and they could be gradually liberalized and then readmitted as normal states. The United States of America might be the best country to emerge from the SACW, but they're still not exactly the good guys- they're pretty morally gray, especially in the earlier days. At least they're only going after anyone who's not socially left of center (for pretty much everything else, they don't really care as long as they're not outright objectivists or whatever), and the worst thing they're doing to them is just imprisoning them (and prison labor was classified as slavery a few years post-war, so jail is marginally less bad than it was pre-war) or throwing them into one of the autonomous conservative states.
@Alexander North : I'm still rather dubious about the sort of far left weirdos that _would_ commit mass murder on such a scale getting their hands on not just nuclear weapons, but "suitcase nukes", which may not exist to begin with (the smallest nukes the US admits to having manufactured weighed some 51 pounds, therefore being more of a backpack nuke, and had less than one kiloton of explosive force ). Maybe something portable in a truck. They'd still have to deal with the issue of not knowing the detonation codes, etc., not to mention that any nukes not already secured will soon have large numbers of armed men converging on them: what odds that an opportunistic left-wing loony manages to get there first with a truck, and enough armed men to take care of any other armed people in the neighborhood (Almost all nuclear weapons are located at a relatively small number of military bases, [1] plus active missile silos: it's not like the various governments of the US have a lot of different locations to secure).
[1] I'm not sure there _are_ any nuclear weapons NE of Washington: the Boston government might be dependent on weapons brought by pro-liberal military elements from elsewhere, or even have to manufacture their own weapons (which they have the nuclear power plants and industrial-scientific infrastructure to do fairly quickly)
[1] I'm not sure there _are_ any nuclear weapons NE of Washington: the Boston government might be dependent on weapons brought by pro-liberal military elements from elsewhere, or even have to manufacture their own weapons (which they have the nuclear power plants and industrial-scientific infrastructure to do fairly quickly)
Now that I think about it, would NATO's Article 5 been applicable in the SACW, fighting on the side of Boston-Sacremento govt?
At the very least it must've been tense in overseas bases while they were likely being redeployed back home.
At the very least it must've been tense in overseas bases while they were likely being redeployed back home.
I edited my original post and added, that the map is a result of an alternate timeline, where the London based Palace & Parliament moves to Dublin following the 1916 Proclamation of the British Republic.
I don't think Scotland would be upset, she is considered to be Northern Britain in our timeline too.
St George's Cross still has a place on the Union Flag because England ceded land to Scotland during history.
1) Because some English lands are included on the map and because Government moved to Dublin from London after the 1916 Proclamation of the British Republic - i.e. it never had a St Patrick's Cross dominant flag.
2) Nor have I since the British Republican Flag is older than the flag used by Hungary.
- Status