TL-191: After the End

[David bar Elias]

If the US is going to permanently annex the CS (and it looks like they did) how will they handle the reintegration? How would they deal with convincing the Confederates that being citizens of the US was good and desirable? How would they eliminiate nationalist feeling in the old Confederacy? From the books it looks like the US was employing draconian measures. They cannot keep that up forever.

It strikes me that aside from the military occupation, Morrell's Equality pamphlet (along with other such means) are an effective way of swaying Southerners into accepting that the United States is here to stay (among other ideas). In short, Southerners might not like the situation, but the vast majority realize that nothing can be done about it.

There will also not be the sort of massive revolt seen in former Canada and from the Mormons on the part of the Southerners. Even after twenty years since the end of the Second Great War, they remain too weary to even contemplate launching an uprising.

The upcoming generations of Southerners will increasingly see themselves as "Americans," along with everyone else in the Union.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

It strikes me that aside from the military occupation, Morrell's Equality pamphlet (along with other such means) are an effective way of swaying Southerners into accepting that the United States is here to stay (among other ideas). In short, Southerners might not like the situation, but the vast majority realize that nothing can be done about it.

There will also not be the sort of massive revolt seen in former Canada and from the Mormons on the part of the Southerners. Even after twenty years since the end of the Second Great War, they remain too weary to even contemplate launching an uprising.

The upcoming generations of Southerners will increasingly see themselves as "Americans," along with everyone else in the Union.

Actually they always did see themselves as Americans, just as Confederate Americans as opposed to the ones living up north, and they probably still see themselves as Confederate Americans as of 1964, there will be greater differences culturally in this 1964 than in our 1964, I have no doubt that many would fly the non-freedom version of the Confederate Battleflag, and their Confederate identity would be more important for them than in our 1964 as well. I think in the Space Race or whatever passes for it in TL-191, there will be a lot of Confederate Scientists and Engineers working on Rockets for the United States, and many will be looking to beat the Germans to the Moon. Some astronauts may sneek small confederate flags onboard their space capsules. There probably won't be as much of the "Jim Crow South" as in our timeline though. Southerners will be trying to disassociate themselves with Jake Featherston and his extermination camps, but just the same their will remain a sort of compedative rivalry between North and South.

 

[The Kiat]

It took the Canadian provinces long enough to start joining the Union.

Butterfly effect or not, I can't really see the Austro-Hungarian Empire surviving this long. It was the sick old man of Europe before the Great War started. And the Ottomans, they were already in the process of dissentigration during the start of the 20th century.

 

[Polish Eagle]

It would be hilarious for an astronaut from the South to sneak a Confederate flag onto the lunar capsule and put that on the moon. Even if he is arrested, he gets the last laugh because a rebel flag flies for many years on the moon.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Why should there be MAD in the first place?

Germany and the US have never been at war, have been allies in the two greatest wars in history, both have their own non-clashing interest spheres and there isn't any ideological basis for a 'cold' war.

Of course, if there is no MAD then this is a much happier world for many people.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Why should there be MAD in the first place?

Germany and the US have never been at war, have been allies in the two greatest wars in history, both have their own non-clashing interest spheres and there isn't any ideological basis for a 'cold' war.

Of course, if there is no MAD then this is a much happier world for many people.

There's always a little MAD when you have nuclear weapons, even after the Cold War, there is still MAD so there would be MAD in this timeline too, though there would likely not be as many nuclear missiles, but their will be enough to cause world waide devastation if they were all used, also the focus would be in containing Japan.

 

[manofsteelwool]

Is the IM more or less cohesive than the Non-aligned Movement of OTL?

Is there any possibility of pacifist Socialists joining the Republican Party if they continue to be a small part of the party? Or will a future war be a pyrrhic victory and the pacifists will come back into power after people see that the cost of victory is too much?

I imagine the Republicans will be working hard coming up with a platform as the South, Midwest, and Canada have vastly different ideas about social, fiscal, environmental, military, and business policies.

Are there any countries on the gold standard and is there anything resembling a federal reserve in the US?

Which party most likely has a minority or majority government in the UK?

 

[lothaw]

Why should there be MAD in the first place?

Germany and the US have never been at war, have been allies in the two greatest wars in history, both have their own non-clashing interest spheres and there isn't any ideological basis for a 'cold' war.

Of course, if there is no MAD then this is a much happier world for many people.

By that definition, OTL the US and the USSR have never been at war, have been allies in two of the greatest wars in history, both have their own non-clashing interest spheres...

As for Imperial Germany vs the US... I'd say there's ideological basis. Monarchy vs democracy...

 

[manofsteelwool]

As for Imperial Germany vs the US... I'd say there's ideological basis. Monarchy vs democracy...

The Germans aren't trying to spread Monarchism all over the world.

 

[David bar Elias]

By that definition, OTL the US and the USSR have never been at war, have been allies in two of the greatest wars in history, both have their own non-clashing interest spheres...

As for Imperial Germany vs the US... I'd say there's ideological basis. Monarchy vs democracy...

Germany and the United States won't be getting into any kind of Cold War. They're certainly rivals, but friendly rivals.

They really don't have anything to fight about.

Is the IM more or less cohesive than the Non-aligned Movement of OTL?

Much more cohesive than in our world.

Is there any possibility of pacifist Socialists joining the Republican Party if they continue to be a small part of the party? Or will a future war be a pyrrhic victory and the pacifists will come back into power after people see that the cost of victory is too much?

I imagine the Republicans will be working hard coming up with a platform as the South, Midwest, and Canada have vastly different ideas about social, fiscal, environmental, military, and business policies.

Good idea actually on pacifist Socialists supporting the Republican nominee. Don't mind if I borrow it.

The Republicans will be pursuing a "Northern Strategy" in TTL, of trying to increase their strength in the Canadian states and the Midwest (among other locales), though they still won't be too competitive in the South by the time their nominee finally wins the White House.

Are there any countries on the gold standard and is there anything resembling a federal reserve in the US?

As of 1964? Can't be sure. Though if the United States isn't off of it as of yet, it will be in the next decade.

As for the Federal Reserve, I imagine the Democrats came up with something like that in the decades prior to the First Great War.

Which party most likely has a minority or majority government in the UK?

I'll only say that the conservative parties in both the UK and France are both still very discredited as of 1964.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Is the IM more or less cohesive than the Non-aligned Movement of OTL?

Is there any possibility of pacifist Socialists joining the Republican Party if they continue to be a small part of the party? Or will a future war be a pyrrhic victory and the pacifists will come back into power after people see that the cost of victory is too much?

I imagine the Republicans will be working hard coming up with a platform as the South, Midwest, and Canada have vastly different ideas about social, fiscal, environmental, military, and business policies.

Are there any countries on the gold standard and is there anything resembling a federal reserve in the US?

Which party most likely has a minority or majority government in the UK?

Pacifism probably still leaves a bad taste in many an American's mouth, as they are still drawing lessons from the last War and the last War had a Confederate Army in Ohio. I'll bet you won't see any pacifist Socialists making any big gains in Ohio anytime soon.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

The Germans aren't trying to spread Monarchism all over the world.

Unless its under their own King, somebody else's king they couldn't care less about unless he was a German puppet.

 

[David bar Elias]

Unless its under their own King, somebody else's king they couldn't care less about unless he was a German puppet.

That won't be happening.

 

[manofsteelwool]

With pacifist Socialists supporting the Republicans, will the Republican Party be fiscally and socially liberal, having similar positions on many things as the Socialists? If that happens, what will the Socialists do to differentiate themselves from the Republicans?

If enough Socialists switch to the Republicans and the Republicans still don't have enough people supporting their party, I can see the Democrats taking advantage of this in the future.

Where do the Democrats have most of their support right now? What are their social and fiscal positions? If some Democrats become dissatisfied with their government leaders, would they also join the Republican Party or will they suck it up and try to change the party?

 

[David bar Elias]

With pacifist Socialists supporting the Republicans, will the Republican Party be fiscally and socially liberal, having similar positions on many things as the Socialists? If that happens, what will the Socialists do to differentiate themselves from the Republicans?

There aren't a lot of people who call themselves pacifists in the Socialist Party as of 1964; as of now they remain a rather muted wing.

If enough Socialists switch to the Republicans and the Republicans still don't have enough people supporting their party, I can see the Democrats taking advantage of this in the future.

The Republican coalition that emerges to take the White House will be a strained one, to say the least.

Where do the Democrats have most of their support right now? What are their social and fiscal positions? If some Democrats become dissatisfied with their government leaders, would they also join the Republican Party or will they suck it up and try to change the party?

The Democrats are very strong in New England, in certain Canadian states such as Alberta (a lot of U.S. settlers made it there), the Rocky Mountain West, and increasingly, the South. They remain competitive pretty much everywhere else (except in some of the Canadian states).

Officially, the Democrats tend to be fiscally conservative and very supportive of military expansion. Socially, they tend to be more conservative than either the Socialists or Republicans, but nothing akin to OTL's religious right.

 

[CT23]

Has the US made a new USS Remembrance carrier to replace the one that was their very first carrier? It would seem the name 'Remembrance' would be the 'Enterprise' of OTL.


Keep up the good work.

 

[David bar Elias]

Has the US made a new USS Remembrance carrier to replace the one that was their very first carrier? It would seem the name 'Remembrance' would be the 'Enterprise' of OTL.

Yup. It's one of America's most powerful carriers.

Keep up the good work.

Thanks!

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

There aren't a lot of people who call themselves pacifists in the Socialist Party as of 1964; as of now they remain a rather muted wing.



The Republican coalition that emerges to take the White House will be a strained one, to say the least.



The Democrats are very strong in New England, in certain Canadian states such as Alberta (a lot of U.S. settlers made it there), the Rocky Mountain West, and increasingly, the South. They remain competitive pretty much everywhere else (except in some of the Canadian states).

Officially, the Democrats tend to be fiscally conservative and very supportive of military expansion. Socially, they tend to be more conservative than either the Socialists or Republicans, but nothing akin to OTL's religious right.

I think in order to have a successful pacifist movement, you need an unpopular war, and an option of just walking out on the war, Jake Featherston didn't give that option. Ohioans couldn't simply protest the war and walk out on it when their homes were being destroyed by then enemy.

 

[David bar Elias]

I think in order to have a successful pacifist movement, you need an unpopular war, and an option of just walking out on the war, Jake Featherston didn't give that option. Ohioans couldn't simply protest the war and walk out on it when their homes were being destroyed by then enemy.

That's basically what I inferred. The Socialist Party's pacifistic wing isn't especially large or influential as of 1964.

 

[CT23]

I wonder what happened to that certain Jew-hating corporal Morrell met in The Center Cannot Hold?