The Union Forever: A TL
- Thread starter Mac Gregor
- Start date
Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906)
Born to social reformer parents in 1820, Anthony continued that tradition. With friends Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Frederick Douglass, Anthony founded the E Pluribus Unum Society in 1868, with fellow reformer Lucy Stone as the first president. Anthony was thrilled to have lived to see the 14th amendment to the constitution pass in 1905. Susan B. Anthony died one year later at 86.
Well per Wiki it existed but Nast's cartoons won out -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_elephant#Name_and_symbols
Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906)
Born to social reformer parents in 1820, Anthony continued that tradition. With friends Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Frederick Douglass, Anthony founded the E Pluribus Unum Society in 1868, with fellow reformer Lucy Stone as the first president. Anthony was thrilled to have lived to see the 14th amendment to the constitution pass in 1905. Susan B. Anthony died one year later at 86.
I love it. I will have to think of some other ways to use the E Pluribus Unum Society.
Very interesting. Here is wiki's take on the Democrats.
The most common mascot symbol for the party has been jackass or the donkey.[25] Andrew Jackson's enemies twisted his name to "jackass" as a term of ridicule regarding a stupid and stubborn animal. However the Democrats liked the common-man implications and picked it up too, so the image persisted and evolved.[26] Its most lasting impression came from the cartoons of Thomas Nast 1870 in Harper's Weekly. Cartoonists followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.
In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Democratic Party in Midwestern states such as Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Ohio was the rooster, as opposed to the Republican eagle. This symbol still appears on Oklahoma, Kentucky, Indiana, and West Virginia[27] ballots. In New York, the Democratic ballot symbol is a five-pointed star.[28] For the majority of the 20th century, Missouri Democrats used the Statue of Liberty as their ballot emblem. This meant that when Libertarian candidates received ballot access in Missouri in 1976, they could not use the Statue of Liberty, their national symbol, as the ballot emblem. Missouri Libertarians instead used the Liberty Bell until 1995, when the mule became Missouri's state animal. From 1995 to 2004, there was some confusion among voters, as the Democratic ticket was marked with the Statue of Liberty (used by Libertarians in other states) and the Libertarians' mule was easily mistaken for a Democratic donkey.
Indeed it is. In the near future the religious left will be a major component in the fight against capital punishment.
I'm looking forward to the future domestic US updates then! The. And the conclusion of the war of course!
Fighting against capital punishment might be intresting alotough not very easy in USA. How many states still use capital punishment? Probably almost all. Michigan was only state which abolished CP before civil war.
Intresting question is too status of capital punishment in other countries. I guess that Norway, Denmark and Sweden have abolished that. In OTL that happened on early 20th century and same might happen ITTL too. In OTL many catholic nations abolished death penaly on end of 19th century and early 20th so same probably happen ITTL too. Leastly some Southern American nations and Italy abandon capital punishment. Other European countries are different thing.
Asia-Pacific War: Rumble in the Jungle
Rumble in the Jungle
Southeast Asia and the Pacific
January-June, 1978
Southeast Asia and the Pacific
January-June, 1978
Technate antiaircraft gun in action outside of Hue
June, 1978
Indochina
With the collapse of Laos and the entry of Siam into the conflict in December, the now outflanked Compact forces had little choice but to withdraw from their defensive line south of the Red River. Over the next two months the Allies, as the nations arrayed against the Calcutta Compact increasingly referred to themselves, conquered the entire northern half of Vietnam, and started the slow encirclement of the Vietnamese capital of Hue. On April 12, Allied forces captured the coastal city of Quy Non cutting off Hue from the rest of the country. Defended by nearly 1.2 million Japanese and Vietnamese troops, Hue however was not going to yield without a fight. Further south, Kampuchean troops made several drives into Siamese territory. Though successful at first, these incursions stalled after the arrival of Chinese reinforcements. By the beginning of August, Technate and Siamese forces had moved into Kampuchea itself but lengthening lines of supply and the demands of the ongoing Battle of Hue stifled the advance.
Operation Southern Cross
A L78 Beaver coming ashore in Malaya
February 26, 1978
On February 26, Commonwealth troops initiated Operation Southern Cross, an amphibious landing on the Malayan Peninsula designed to block the Japanese from driving north into Siam. Equipped with the new Canadian designed L78 Amphibious Assault Lander, nicknamed “the Beaver,” the mostly Australian and East African troops reached shore in much better order than their comrades did during the Second Battle of Trinidad. Over 39,000 soldiers landed in the first several hours, taking the defenders by surprise. Simultaneously, General Travers and his army pushed north from Singapore forcing the Japanese in Malaya to fight on two fronts. For the next three months, the Commonwealth made significant gains against General Takuma Siato’s overtaxed 15th Army. This, combined with growing resistance from guerrillas in the interior, pushed the Japanese to the breaking point. Realizing the hopelessness on continuing to fight in Malaya, Saito requested that his soldiers be withdrawn. Prime Minister Hayashi reluctantly agreed and in mid-June started transferring the remaining troops to shore up the deteriorating situation in Vietnam.
Battle of the Bonaparte Archipelago
While successful on other fronts, the Allies suffered a serious setback in the ongoing campaign to drive the Japanese off Papua. In April, a renewed offensive by General Sir Peter Carter through Kokoda was to be accompanied by the Far Eastern Fleet attacking the island of New Britain in an attempt to overwhelm the enemy. The Japanese under Admiral Saburo Tsukino however were expecting such a move and intercepted the Allied fleet on April 19. Known as the Battle of the Bonaparte Archipelago, the bloody contest pitted four Japanese carriers against four of their Commonwealth counterparts. However a new antiaircraft missile, the TM8, gave the Imperial Japanese Navy the advantage. Tsukino was able to force the Far Eastern Fleet to retire after sinking the HMAS Albury, only recently returned to duty, and damaging the HMS Victorious and HMCS Maple Leaf. The Japanese lost no carriers but the Shikoku and the newly commissioned Aichi suffered a few direct hits. With the naval portion of the operation thwarted, General Carter called off his attack.
Japanese destroyer Minazuki during the
Battle of the Bonaparte Archipelago
April 19, 1978
Last edited:
The ground situation seems to be markedly improving for the Allied forces on most fronts. Naval battles are always tricky, especially when both sides are near-equal in numbers. On that front, the Japanese are still holding their own in this war, though not for much longer, methinks...
Looks like the Commonwealth's fortunes continue to improve. Now that Siam's back in the fighting, and Vietnam's been partially segmented, the allies can point to a solid string of successes to "push for the win" (or at least an acceptable peace). I'm glad to see the Canadians and accompanying troops paid attention to the Trinidad landings and took the lessons of that ball-kicking (victory though it was) to heart. And of course, I forgot all about the works of guerrillas and commandos behind the lines, which it seems has been taking its toll on Japanese forces in the region. Now that Malaya has been slated for withdrawal by Hayashi, I wonder what is next for the allies in terms of focusing efforts outside of the Technate's operations in Indochina? Oh, and it looks like the IJN can still get its licks in on the Royal Navy and RCN 
. I'll give them this, they're still making a fight of things, and at least it's a world-class fleet involved in the fighting and not some pissant Coast Guard on steroids.
On the land, who would you say has the advantage in doctrine, organization, and technology/mechanization; the Commonwealth, or Japan? We've seen that India has plenty o' bodies to throw at the Brits & Co., but are lacking in sophisticated equipment such as modern cataphracts. Could that same charge be leveled at Japan's army (not exactly a blitzkrieg-heavy force in OTL)? Anyway, nice update!
EDIT: Also nice COUPLE of updates prior to this, I just didn't have much to add to the discussion at that time...I'm not a war-junkie, I swear! Anyway, would there be enough changes in territory to warrant a new world map yet, or not so much?
. I'll give them this, they're still making a fight of things, and at least it's a world-class fleet involved in the fighting and not some pissant Coast Guard on steroids. On the land, who would you say has the advantage in doctrine, organization, and technology/mechanization; the Commonwealth, or Japan? We've seen that India has plenty o' bodies to throw at the Brits & Co., but are lacking in sophisticated equipment such as modern cataphracts. Could that same charge be leveled at Japan's army (not exactly a blitzkrieg-heavy force in OTL)? Anyway, nice update!
EDIT: Also nice COUPLE of updates prior to this, I just didn't have much to add to the discussion at that time...I'm not a war-junkie, I swear!
Anyway, would there be enough changes in territory to warrant a new world map yet, or not so much?
The Japanese won't have the kind of shipping freedom the Commonwealth do, though. They'll run out of ships before the Commonwealth, whose shipping isn't wrecked like the Compact nations'.
On the land, who would you say has the advantage in doctrine, organization, and technology/mechanization; the Commonwealth, or Japan? We've seen that India has plenty o' bodies to throw at the Brits & Co., but are lacking in sophisticated equipment such as modern cataphracts. Could that same charge be leveled at Japan's army (not exactly a blitzkrieg-heavy force in OTL)? Anyway, nice update!
EDIT: Also nice COUPLE of updates prior to this, I just didn't have much to add to the discussion at that time...I'm not a war-junkie, I swear!
That is a difficult question. The Japanese definitely were better at amphibious operations during the beginning but the Commonwealth has been catching up. Japan is technologically on par with most Commonwealth systems or even a little ahead. Other Compact members lag slightly behind. The Indians do have some heavy cataphracts such as the Bagha. However shortages of fuel and raw materials has curtailed their numbers and effectives. A red/blue world map will posted in the next update. Cheers!
Well the Japanese have been preparing for the Next Big War, and had their go-round with China a few decades back, whereas the Commonwealth has been playing World Cop and/or suppressing rebellions up until this point, so that disparity in military readiness does make sense. The Indians could have decent tech as well, but I gather that their economy is rather inefficiently run on top of the lack of resources, both of which meaning they can bring their industry fully to bear against an outside wartime threat. Which is why I brought up the "quantity, not quality" aspect as a counter to that disparity compared to the Commonwealth. Something I have wondered is why the British let the Japanese catch up in the naval game both IOTL and here (and yes, I do think they could've done something about it), but that's not germane to the TL. I will say that their naval strength seems believable and quite the challenge for Britain and Co. to overcome, given Japan's proximity to the front (and less need to maintain maritime commitments elsewhere).
Do you think the British should have sank Japanese ships in the drydocks, or simply keep out-producing and out-teching them?
Well, having close to a billion (or at least several hundred million) people and tons of combat-age males will do that for a country's wartime doctrine. I do wonder what the economic toll this war is taking on the Commonwealth and India/Japan. It can't be good news for the latter, but the former I don't see getting out of this mess without some "interesting" financial effects for them to deal with (perhaps part of why the USA and Germany are alluded to being the main powers of the 20th. Century in the first iteration of the TL...granted it's a post-facto rationalization on my part, but I think it fits
).