I find your monoculturally singular answer deeply offensive. Nations are entitled to their diversity, including diversity in how they weight social change against tradition. You know who's always talking about structures common to past societies as being inherently natural or right? Societists.
This sounds horrifying.
 
I find your monoculturally singular answer deeply offensive. Nations are entitled to their diversity, including diversity in how they weight social change against tradition. You know who's always talking about structures common to past societies as being inherently natural or right? Societists.
But with increasingly rapid global communication newer trends will be ever more universal. The only way to ensure true tradition is through refering to traditions from eras of isolation (which makes Japan or Korea a good inspiration).
 
So what are the Empire of North America's goals, exactly?
The goals of most of the participants in the war seem quite unclear. Especially in Europe. Why are Germany and Russia so hostile to each other? Why did Poland and Danubia get involved? We can guess that Scandinavia almost surely wants to regain Jutland, a region which has long been part of Denmark, and whose Danish population has been oppressed by Germany, and which Scandinavia never forgot about. Scandinavia's objective can be considered justified, but are there any more such disputes? If not, Societist arguments that wars happen without justifiable causes will be strengthened.

Speaking of Russia, its aggression towards the ENA and subsequent provocative behaviour in Europe despite the presence of a large, hostile alliance shows that Moscow is very self-confident. We'll see how justified this self-confidence is. If Feng China decides that this is a good opportunity to complete Chinese unification, Russia will be fighting against the world's 2nd, 5th and 6th largest economies at the same time.
 
Last edited:
If Societist state that sky is blue, do Diversitarians feel compelled to argue that it is not actually blue all time, and other points of view exist on the matter?
Particularly hardcore Diversitarians may in fact argue that claiming the sky is blue is overly simplistic and that the sky can in fact be light blue, navy, azure, deep blue, grey, orange or a variety of other colours depending on latitude, time of day, climate, prevailing weather conditions and so forth, and so what a Brazilian may consider to be sky blue may well be different to what a Frenchman considers it to be.
 
Particularly hardcore Diversitarians may in fact argue that claiming the sky is blue is overly simplistic and that the sky can in fact be light blue, navy, azure, deep blue, grey, orange or a variety of other colours depending on latitude, time of day, climate, prevailing weather conditions and so forth, and so what a Brazilian may consider to be sky blue may well be different to what a Frenchman considers it to be.
Like that Tumblr post.
 
The goals of most of the participants in the war seem quite unclear. Especially in Europe. Why are Germany and Russia so hostile to each other? Why did Poland and Danubia get involved? We can guess that Scandinavia almost surely wants to regain Jutland, a region which has long been part of Denmark, and whose Danish population has been oppressed by Germany, and which Scandinavia never forgot about. Scandinavia's objective can be considered justified, but are there any more such disputes? If not, Societist arguments that wars happen without justifiable causes will be strengthened.
Second this critic.
I don't understand why these states fight each over and why in Poland rather than in the Baltic?
The only country in Europe whose participation in this war makes sense to me is Britain (allied to the ENA, losing a major warship because of Meridian attack close to a British colony).

Speaking of Russia, its aggression towards the ENA and subsequent provocative behaviour in Europe despite the presence of a large, hostile alliance shows that Moscow is very self-confident. We'll see how justified this self-confidence is. If Feng China decides that this is a good opportunity to complete Chinese unification, Russia will be fighting against the world's 2nd, 5th and 6th largest economies at the same time.
Just how close are Feng China and the ENA?
The ENA supporting Feng China's ambition to re-unite China and absorb Beiqing China and Russia trying to prevent that is the only reason I can think of that could lead to a war between Russia and the ENA.
AFAIK there are no territorial disputes or conflicts over client states between these countries in Novamund, Europe and Africa.
 
Just how close are Feng China and the ENA?
The ENA supporting Feng China's ambition to re-unite China and absorb Beiqing China and Russia trying to prevent that is the only reason I can think of that could lead to a war between Russia and the ENA.
AFAIK there are no territorial disputes or conflicts over client states between these countries in Novamund, Europe and Africa.
IIRC Russia's entry into the War had something to do with securing New Muscovy from potential ENA aggression and (maybe?) using Superia as a buffer state.
 
IIRC Russia's entry into the War had something to do with securing New Muscovy from potential ENA aggression and (maybe?) using Superia as a buffer state.
And they'd been selling arms to Superia for a while that was clearing ticking off the Yanks. So I'm sure there were some native groups in New Muscovy with oddly American looking guns too.
 
IIRC Russia's entry into the War had something to do with securing New Muscovy from potential ENA aggression and (maybe?) using Superia as a buffer state.
There was no hint that the ENA would threaten Russia-in-Novamund (border dispute between them was solved at the end of the Great American War) or not treat Superia as a buffer state between them. In fact, they supported Superia in order to maintain and expand this buffer until the border fixed a few years before the current war started.
 
Particularly hardcore Diversitarians may in fact argue that claiming the sky is blue is overly simplistic and that the sky can in fact be light blue, navy, azure, deep blue, grey, orange or a variety of other colours depending on latitude, time of day, climate, prevailing weather conditions and so forth, and so what a Brazilian may consider to be sky blue may well be different to what a Frenchman considers it to be.
I imagine the "wine-dark sea" argument about the ancient Greeks having no concept of blue as it's typically thought of today would be popular.
 
Did Thande imply that the Societist bloc is gonna fall?
It's all wonderfully unclear (the little hints at what the modern world is like are one of the best parts of TTL in my opinion). But the image I get is that there was a big war with several nuclear weapons used (called the Sunrise War or the Last War of Supremacy) around 1990 that resulted in the collapse of the Societist bloc.
 
It's all wonderfully unclear (the little hints at what the modern world is like are one of the best parts of TTL in my opinion). But the image I get is that there was a big war with several nuclear weapons used (called the Sunrise War or the Last War of Supremacy) around 1990 that resulted in the collapse of the Societist bloc.
The Sunrise War was a separate war in the late 1950s.
 
What would those be?
Sentimentality - Horses are in that awkward halfway point between farm animals and companion animals. A number of OTL countries find the idea of eating them as distasteful as eating pets.

Religious - I believe the original reason horsemeat was taboo in Western Europe is something to do with pagan ceremonies involving eating horse that Christendom wanted stop. I'm pretty sure it's not kosher, either. I don't know how Caraíbas's Universal Religion might feel about it, but it's a possibility.

Health - During the UK horsemeat scandal one of the points was that horses are filled with drugs that aren't tested for human consumption, because it's assumed no-one is going to. The Societist bloc may not care so much about standardised dietary practices as standardised animal and human health legislation.

All of these possibilities would be a result of Societist standardisation, since obviously the Carolinians themselves don't feel that way, but it wouldn't be as simple as "Societists ban horsemeat because That Would Be Different".
 
If Feng China decides that this is a good opportunity to complete Chinese unification, Russia will be fighting against the world's 2nd, 5th and 6th largest economies at the same time.
Feng China is almost guaranteed to be involved. However, it's 2nd, 5th and 6th versus 3rd and 4th - 1st being neutral - with all sides enjoying fairly major bunches of allies (Norden, Lithuania, Corea and the Beiqing for Russia - Siam, the Hermandad and probably Congo for the UPSA - Danubia and Poland for Germany - at least some Hanoverian kingdoms, Burma, and probably Venezuela, for the ENA - Feng China has its own sphere of allies/vassals to muster, so each of the five major belligerents so far can appeal to a network of supporst, sometimes a fairly major one, as the Hermandad, the Vitebsk bloc and the German-Polish-Danubian alliance show - I'd say the same applies to ENA and its Hanoverian bloc if there wasn't foreshadowing implying a rocky relationship between the Septentrians and the British. Note however that the Meridians keep treating the Hanoverian states as one, as they had done in previous confrontations. Oh, and the Mauré are also in the alliance with Germany, ENA and the Feng, although clearly more as cobelligerents (at best) than true allies. There appears to be little coordination between the largest powers on each side (Russia is not, it seems, talking with the UpSA about a joint strategy, nor, guess, are the ENA and the Germans doing that - although I expect the Meridians and the Siamese to talk each other, and likewise the Septentrians and the Feng).
The Armed Neutrals are also a power bloc not to be trifled with, France is a major power is Italy is also fairly strong overall. One wonders what are the Ottomans and the Persians up to, they're the only important powers we don't know about.
 
Top