Discussion in 'Alternate History Maps and Graphics' started by Planita13, May 18, 2019.
Yeah, you're not supposed to outright post it. I just use the preview
Which is funny because Kanan did post it and she apparently didn't have any problems
That's strange. Either way I only use the preview when I make mine
Great post! however, the GDP does not add up, factoring in France's population it should be to the tune of 4 trillion, not 642 billion.
Fixed! thanks for the heads up!
Nice work! Small nitpicks though because the state borders for Carolina and national borders for Alaksa have been changed.
What are the US states like ITTL?
Were the Russian *Nazis as antisemitist as OTL Nazis? How were Jews treated? Who was/were the main untermenschen races in the view of the Rssian Nazis - probably Germans, but who else?
What consequences does this have for proposals of reestablishing Israel?
Since I'm currently working on an atlas for the TL I can provide a bit of data
Alabama; Population: 4,020,638 , Capital City: Montgomery , Largest City : Birmingham
Alaska; Population 824,522 , Capital City : Juneau , Largest City : Anchorage
Appalachia; Population , [REDACTED, Note 1] Capital and Largest City: Knoxville/Burg [Note 2]
Arizona; Population: 5,992,017 , Capital and Largest City: Flagstaff
Arkansas; Population: 2,784,234, Capital and Largest City: Little Rock
California*; Population: 19,213,431, Capital City: San Gabriel, Largest City: Los Angeles
Carolina; Population: [REDACTED,Note 1], Capital City: [REDACTED, Note 3], Largest City: Charlotte
Cascadia; Population: 7,087,893, Capital and Largest City: Seattle
Cheyenne; Population: 1,583,489, Capital and Largest City: Billings
Colorado; Population: 6,161,047, Capital and Largest City : Denver
Connecticut; Population: 3,428,971, Capital and Largest City : Hartford
Dakota; Population : 683,191, Capital and Largest City: Bismarck
Delaware; Population : 891,939, Capital City : Dover, Largest City: Wilmington
Eureka; Population : 22,528,995, Capital City: Sacramento, Largest City: Ohlone
Florida; Population : 20,599,366, Capital City: Tallahassee, Largest City: Miami
Georgia; Population : 8,682,012, Capital and Largest City: Atlanta
Illinois; Population : 12,430,632, Capital City: Springfield, Largest City: Chicago
Indiana; Population : 6,483,802, Capital and Largest City: Indianapolis
Iowa; Population : 2,912,307, Capital and Largest City: Des Moines
Kansas; Population : 2,823,768, Capital City: Topeka, Largest City: Kansas City [Note 4]
Kentucky; Population : 4,328,911, Capital City: Frankfort, Largest City: Louisville
Kootenai; Population : 1,814,719, Capital and Largest City: Boise
Liberty*; Population : 6,158,792, Capital City: Columbia, Largest City: Charleston
Louisiana*; Population : 5,874,842, Capital City: Baton Rouge, Largest City: New Orleans
Maine; Population : 1,423,112, Capital City: Augusta, Largest City: Portland
Maryland; Population : 5,678,934, Capital City: Annapolis, Largest City: Baltimore
Massachusetts; Population : 6,456,798, Capital and Largest City: Boston
Michigan; Population : 9,753,640, Capital City: Lansing, Largest City: Detroit
Minnesota; Population : 5,478,293, Capital and Largest City: Minneapolis
Mississippi; Population : 5,642,785, Capital and Largest City: Jackson
Missouri; Population : 5,842,763, Capital City: Jefferson City, Largest City: St. Louis
Nebraska; Population : 1,736,632, Capital City: Lincoln, Largest City: Omaha
New Hampshire; Population : 1,286,470, Capital and Largest City: Concord
New Jersey; Population : 8,578,942, Capital and Largest City: [REDACTED, Note 5]
New Mexico; Population : 2,412,079, Capital and Largest City: Albuquerque
New York; Population : 19,282,476, Capital City: Albany, Largest City: New York City
Ohio; Population : 11,447,130, Capital City: Columbus, Largest City: Cleveland
Oregon; Population : 3,831,074, Capital City: [REDACTED, Note 6], Largest City: Portland
Pennsylvania; Population : 12,483,891, Capital City: Harrisburg, Largest City: Philadelphia
Rhode Island; Population : 1,047,229, Capital and Largest City: Providence
Sequoyah*; Population : 1,532,012, Capital and Largest City: Muskogee
Sioux; Population : 819,342, Capital and Largest City: Berlin
Tennessee; Population : 4,029,698, Capital and Largest City: Nashville
Texas; Population : 25,586,148, Capital City: Fort Worth, Largest City: Houston
Utah; Population : 2,691,391, Capital and Largest City: Salt Lake City
Vermont; Population : 621,841, Capital and Largest City: Montpelier
Virginia; Population : 9,101,212, Capital City: Richmond, Largest City: Norfolk
Wisconsin; Population: 5,693,043, Capital City: Madison, Largest City: Milwaukee
Note 1: Appalachia-Carolina border changed after I got population statistics for those states, likely changed
Note 2: Conflicting data on whether or not it's Knoxville or Knoxburg, although most likely the former
Note 3: Capital of Carolina does not show up on any map. Likely Raleigh.
Note 4: Only counting portions of the city inside Kansas
Note 5: No Cities known in New Jersey ITTL. Likely Trenton and Newark.
Note 6: Capital of Oregon does not show up on any map. Likely Salem.
*Indicates Free States
Hope this helps!
While the Russian *Nazis weren't specifically Antisemitic, Russian Jews still got caught up it as not being Russian enough (since they practiced Judaism). The Jews were subject to a wide range of ethnic cleansing, from forced conversion, destruction of synagogues and holy books, state sanctioned kidnappings of Jewish children, and forced expulsion. Well the view of the Russian Nazis wasn't based on racism as it is with OTL Nazis, rather its pan-Slavism turned up to 11 and with genocide to boot. Thus there aren't untermenschen but Germans were the main target because how they wrecked Russia and their Germanization programs. In general they want to assimilate or expel everyone who doesn't conform.
I haven't thought about Israel yet. I've been mostly thinking about small Jewish majority states scattered across the world.
By the time election year rolled around, the Democratic Norcross Administration was in a bind. While President Anderson Norcross had a couple of foreign policy successes under his belt, in the end most voters cared about their paychecks more. The economy continued to wind down throughout 2016, and some economists worried that it could completely stagnate by years end. The President was still broadly popular, especially in the Industrial Belt, but many in the Democratic Left worried that Norcoss wouldn't be able to pull off another surprise win like the one that won him the nomination in 2012. Thus when he declared his intention to run for a second term, many in the Democratic Left fretted and Christian Labor smelled blood in the water. In turn they nominated James Wallace, a military veteran and senator from Missouri.
However it was the year of the populist tide, and neither the mainstream factions fully grasped the implications. First it was the collapse of the Christian Labor in the Deep South a year before. Southerners furious over the end of protectionist policies and the CL’s support of the removal of Confederate statues defected to form the Southern Labor faction. Wallace and the rest of the leadership at first blew off the faction assuming that the defectors would return to the fold, but when they fielded notable firebrand Willam Robertson and the first polls came in, Christian Labor knew that they had a problem.
Secondly the weakening economy was accompanied by the meteoric rise of the American market right. The Moderates’s liberal platform attracted many voters tired of the power of the unions over the nation’s economy and the nation’s socially conservative laws. While they had existed since the 1960s only since the 2000 election, did they rise to any significance. They nominated self-made billionaire, philanthropist, and humanitarian Henry Gates.
The Progressives nominated Benjamin Sanders, a notable social activist and popular Senator from Vermont. He represented a large break from the large anti-capitalist caucuses in the Progressives, which he hoped could draw in disaffected Democratic Left voters. Although the Progressives is one of the most vocal and liberal forces for socially liberal policies, Sanders effectively shared the same economic policies with the Democratic Left.
Finally the various ethnic interests caucuses once again chose to run under a fusion ticket as they had for the past several elections. While they do not share policies or positions, they run under a joint ticket to win delegates and influence at the Convention. They nominated Leonard Innis from Free Labor, continuing the tradition of rotating the nomination between each major caucus.
By April it was clear that the primary would be wild and unpredictable. The economic growth shrunk with President Norcoss’s poll numbers, whose campaign floundered for a couple of weeks before righting himself. Meanwhile Christian Labor focused its efforts on winning back the Deep South, which infamously culminated in a personal spat between Wallace and Roberston. It put a serious dent into the persona that Wallace tried to cultivate as a calm, collected character. The two candidates of the main factions struggled to gain momentum, leaving the door open for populist forces to exploit.
Meanwhile Henry Gates was largely successful at remaining above the fray, instead focusing on healing the infamously fractious caucuses in the Moderates and forming a united front in order to boost their chances. His socially and economically liberal platform already appealed to the urban liberals on the coast, but Gates moved to court new constituencies. He found broad support from the libertarian-minded voters of the Mountain States who were attracted by Gate’s promises of personal freedom. He was already well known in the region as his Foundation played a major role in rebuilding the region’s dated infrastructure. He was accused by Wallace and Norcross of exploiting his wealth to garner votes, but his supporters didn’t care.
Another constituency Gates courted was the Hispanic vote, which traditionally backed Chrisitan Labor. While his efforts among older Hispanics were mixed at best, he found the most success with middle ages and young Hispanic voters. In fact, somewhat unexpectedly, Gates found broad support from younger voters dissatisfied with the current union dominated standard quo. While attempts at outreach were mixed at best, it was undeniable that he was the first choice of most young voters. The leadership hoped that the competitive coalition they forged of urban liberals, young voters, and the libertarian-minded voters of the Mountain States would carry them far, maybe even to victory as unlikely as that seemed.
Dissatisfied voters turning away from the uninspiring Norcross campaign instead looked toward Sanders’ campaign. While it was a boon to his run for the nomination, Sanders had to constantly fend off attacks by factions members from the far-left, who tepid with his run to begin with. The criticism that Sanders shifted toward a more moderate stance just to be palatable with more voters, proved to be founded based upon Sanders's voting record in the Senate.
Slowly but surely President Norcross lost ground to the other candidates. Senator Wallace pulled ahead into a slight lead ahead of the pack, but Wallace was unable to fully benefit from the stuttering campaign of his chief rival. Most of it had to do with Gate’s meteoric rise in the polls, and thus they turned their attention on each other. Gates was attacked as an out of touch billionaire with no political experience and thus unqualified to be President. Gates hit back, most famously accusing Wallace and Norcross being two sides of the same coin in a primetime TV commercial.
As August neared, it became clear that unless the polls were off by miles in one way or another, the coming Convention would be the most fractional in history. The polls showed a three way race between Christian Labor, the Moderates, and the Democratic Left. Some showed Wallace with an insurmountable lead, some appeared to show a last minute surge for Norcross, and others showed three way tie. When the day came on August 6th, Americans across the country watched as the results slowly trickled in from all the primary elections at once.
The final results were unsurprising and surprising at the same time when the last delegates were finally allocated by 4 AM the next day. It was no surprise that the main candidates would perform poorly but not this poorly. The Moderates arguably had the best night, surging to a respectable third place by drawing support from the West and the Mid Atlantic. Later research would show Gates was able to draw voters from Christian Labor and the Democratic Left, rather than just from the latter. The Democratic Left, while still in second, suffered the worst primary results for a incumbent President in political history. Wallace also had the dubious honor by being the front-runner with the lowest percentage of votes and delegates in history. Southern Labor also effectively carried the Deep South, further hindering Christian Labor and with the amount of infighting between the two in the campaign, the split appeared to be permanent. Innis and the People of America also had something to celebrate for, as the German American Association managed to win Sioux by a thread from all the vote splitting in the state. Nevertheless they shook hands and parted ways for the Convention in September.
It's like watching a presidential election within a presidential election. I almost want to seen the National Union fragment.
shhhh in time.
Also if you read carefully, it says that the factions nominated their own candidates before the actual primary. So it means that each faction has a primary for their faction's nominee where the candidates are in turn nominated by each caucus.
Question, what happened to East Prussia ITTL? Is it part of Poland? Lithuania? Its own Russified state a la Zapadoslavia? A mix of the three? I'm curious
Its its own Russified state like Zapadoslavia, minus Memel which was given to Lithuania. The main difference are that Prussia is still firmly within the Russian sphere and claims to be the legitimate successor to the Kingdom of Prussia, which is dubious obviously. It broke away after Zapadoslavia's revolution.
Ortez's The Californios: Biography of a People, is considered one of the most authoritative works on the Californio people, first published in 1995 after the election of the first Citizens of America governor. Its newest edition, published in 2018, has been updated to in response to the election of the nationalist President James Wallace.
The first half of the book dedicates itself to charting the history of the Californios, from the first Spanish settlements on the shores of the Gran Lago to their recent history. Ortez writes a masterful analysis on the rise of Californio nationalism as a distinct identity and its presence on culture, politics, and their interaction with the greater United States throughout Californio history. She details their struggle to maintain their identity against the early American attempts to assimilate them, detailing the increasing violence culminating in the Californio Revolt in 1862. Ortez calls President Lincoln as one of the greatest friends of the Californios and credits him for negotiating a favorable settlement and for allowing Californio culture to survive and thrive. Ortez then details their shift from armed struggle to political activism from successfully advocating for statehood to the 1974 Supreme Court case in Hodges vs. California. She also describes the growth and evolution of Calfornio popular culture in the 20th century, the domination of the state's politics by the Popular Movement, and the contentious relationship between California and the rest of the United States.
The second half of the book analyzes the status of the Californio people today. Ortez covers the situation that allowed for the election of the pro-American Citizens of California and the response by ordinary Californios. While she explains current cultural and political trends and other recent history, she dedicates a majority of this half of the book to ask what it means to be a Californio in the 21st century. She argues that despite the advent of social media, globalization, more cross-cultural interactions, and shifting winds in Washington DC, Californio identity would continue to endure. She believes that an inclusive civic nationalism exists, and argues that anyone willing to learn, understand, and assimilate into their unique identity and culture is a Californio. However she notes that Californio culture will continue to evolve and grow from outside influence as it always had, despite the protests of conservative nationalists.
The Californios: Biography of a People is an international bestseller and it is a highly readable but in-depth narrative history of one of the largest and most unique cultures in the United States. Nevertheless it has received some criticism for her arguments in the second half of the book.
I wonder if she realized if the Civil War wasn't happening Lincoln would have had the revolt crushed.
She makes the argument that while yes without the Civil War, Lincoln would be pressed to crush the revolt. But the common historical narrative today and back then is that the Californios revolted because of Joseph Lane's antics (although it was really much more than that). So basically the common sentiment in the East was that they were rebelling against Joseph Lane. But yes Ortez understood the political reality, but she notes that Lincoln offering significant autonomy and a blanket pardon is a very generous peace deal.
Separate names with a comma.