New Deal Coalition Retained Pt II: World on Fire

Reader mode
LouisTheGreyFox

LouisTheGreyFox

Well I think before they close this thread I like to contribute something here for everyone. Recently I made and finished a worlda map of the world after World War III in this timeline. So I hope you all enjoy it especially Congressman as well.

Despite political differences I did in fact enjoy the TL.

dvFaT7m.png
 

SuperFrog

Mustard said:
Right, OTL matters have prevented me from logging into this website for a while now, but I thought I would briefly return to offer my thoughts on the end of NDCR.

I've been reading this timeline since Part One, around about half-way through the chapters on the Reagan Presidency. I found it enjoyable, well-written and left me on the edge of my seat waiting for more. Was it the most plausible timeline in the world? No. Could some things have been handled better? Definitely. But there were many aspects of this timeline which I thoroughly enjoyed reading about and I am dismayed that many loose ends will never be tied.

However, if I could I would like to humbly request one thing - closure.

I may be possibly mis-remembering, but I recall back in Part One that @The Congressman mentioned that he had a list of all US Presidents from this timeline, which would indicate that at least a draft of how the timeline would go forward had been laid out. So is it possible that @The Congressman could release such a list? I'd completely understand if he doesn't want to, but I, and I'm sure many other fans of this timeline, would like to at least see what could have been.

This timeline has certainly gone out not with a bang, but with a whimper, and its demise is disappointing. But I wish @The Congressman all the best with whatever he chooses to do next and I thank him sincerely for making such a work.
Click to expand...
I too would love to see who he planned for the presidency.
 
Redcoat

Redcoat

Banned
anarcho_liberal said:
I respect the loyalty of his fanbase, but there are warranted critiques to be made of this timeline.
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly. It just gets a bit annoying when you deal with it every other page, I feel like I just tuned it out after a while. The people criticizing did have valid points though.
 
Deblano

Deblano

anarcho_liberal said:
Funny, I've been here since the start and the timeline was pretty decent before 1968. Then George Wallace became the Democratic candidate, unrepentant German nationalists assumed office for no plausible reason, and Rhodesia has continued its existence into the 1990's. I stopped reading when there was no deployment of nuclear weapons without any effort to describe why they weren't used. Or the fact the Australian Defence Force could field 200,000 troops in a very short time period and, if I remember correctly, in a single battle.

Frankly, it is a shame the timeline ended the way it did with such bitterness and vitriol, I hope Congressman continues to develop his skill at writing. As with all users, they provide us their free time and content without asking anything in return.

I respect the loyalty of his fanbase, but there are warranted critiques to be made of this timeline.
Click to expand...

IIRC correctly at the end of NDCR Part 1, there was a "gentlemen's agreement" reached by Rumsfeld and the USSR not to use nuclear weapons following the outbreak of WWIII (In that same scene, the Soviets boast about how they will crush the United States, and Rumsfeld yells at them to get out before throwing a glass at the wall)
 
Indicus

Indicus

X_X said:
The interpretation of Sanjay Gandhi was interesting and it was implied that he would be a big global player in the 1990s.
Click to expand...

It was wrong, and the implication that a man who planned the forced sterilization of every Indian with more than two kids was actually a great capitalist guy is at best badly researched and at worst an insult to the millions of people he harmed.

I mean, reinterpret political figures, sure, but just don't interpret an authoritarian who attempted to establish a permanent dictatorship and viewed the people as stupid proles as a great guy.
 

Ratmancampidori

Banned
Deblano said:
IIRC correctly at the end of NDCR Part 1, there was a "gentlemen's agreement" reached by Rumsfeld and the USSR not to use nuclear weapons following the outbreak of WWIII (In that same scene, the Soviets boast about how they will crush the United States, and Rumsfeld yells at them to get out before throwing a glass at the wall)
Click to expand...
I thought of nuclear weapons not be used similar to how chemical weapons were not used at any point in World War 2, despite both sides having vast stockpiles.

They just realized that nukes being used would only invite them to be used by the other side.

I beleive I read an account by a person Pre-WW2 who beleived a second Great War would without a doubt leave much of Europe a poison uninhabited landscape.
 

Midwestern Shadows

Indicus said:
It was wrong, and the implication that a man who planned the forced sterilization of every Indian with more than two kids was actually a great capitalist guy is at best badly researched and at worst an insult to the millions of people he harmed.
Click to expand...
I hope you didn't miss the part where he killed his own mother and pretty much did the exact opposite of "give her an honorable send-off". That may not be a valid comparison to his OTL crimes, but it certainly still speaks of his true nature.
 
Laxault2020

Laxault2020

Ratmancampidori said:
I thought of nuclear weapons not be used similar to how chemical weapons were not used at any point in World War 2, despite both sides having vast stockpiles.

They just realized that nukes being used would only invite them to be used by the other side.

I beleive I read an account by a person Pre-WW2 who beleived a second Great War would without a doubt leave much of Europe a poison uninhabited landscape.
Click to expand...



In International Relations theory, we would use a ranked-choice game to describe this scenario. The best case for both sides is to win the war without deploying nukes, followed by winning the war with nuclear weapons (you deploy nukes but the other side doesn't, this scenario is highly unlikely/risky, and you most likely won't gain territoriality in such a victory as the other side is totally irradiated and your ideology villified), followed by losing the war without deploying nuclear weapons (you still have a chance for a negotiated peace, surrender, or forced exile), and lastly with losing the war with deploying nuclear weapons (you lose the war because the enemy nukes you as well, the world ends, and you didn't even win the war)

In this "game", both sides will not deploy nuclear weapons because this is the dominant choice.

Also, in a WWIII scenario, the US has the primary excuse to start nuking first, as the USSR has conventional numerical superiority, especially with the more allies it had ITL, and thus in a conventional vs conventional face-off would be a favorite in the short-medium term. Not to mention that nuclear weapons would result in a lose-lose scenario. As long as the USSR thinks it can win, it won't use nukes unless pre-empted. Meanwhile, Rumsfeld knows that in the long-term, his side has more industrial capacity and dominance of the sea, and thus will most likely achieve total victory without nukes if the West can survive the initial onslaught without being forced to sue for peace by the domestic population.

And I thought, end-of-the-war nuke craziness was handled well, and enjoyed the use of the star trek lazer to shoot down the ICBM as a bit of the 80's-Action-Verse element of the timeline.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top