TL-191: After the End

I don't think the US would allow a Confederate Victory by quagmire or whatever,

ok,
A: the USA has no intention of even letting them talk about secession.
B: Most confederates are unlikely to rebel, they lost two wars in a row, and their country no longer exist.


they'll use everything in their article including nukes to make sure the Confederates don't win, of course nukes are a last resort,
By no I think they know the effects of Radiation.
nukes would not be an option

but now that they got the place occupied, its hard for me to see a convincing argument for them to let them go their seperate way, and also I think some southerners have a conscious, they are probably haunted by the spectacle of those death camps, some people down south might wonder if a revived CSA was a good thing, if it means a return to the likes of Jake Featherston or somebody like him for instance. If they integrate with the USA and get their voting rights back, they can influence who gets elected President and pass laws with their congressmen and Senators.
Yes, ok.
may take years before a southener gets elected to the white house as president, but ok.

When you consider that Jake Featherston made a lot of Confederate citizens "disappear" without trial or jury, many would no doubt think they were better off under US rule.

that's one terrible president out of how many?

The Canadians on the otherhand are just occupied, they understand why, but now that the reason (the UK alliance with the CSA) is no longer valid, they probably want their independence even more, and probably want Quebec back as well, and some "mealy mouthed liberal" just might grant them what they want, think Jimmy Carter and the Panama Canal treaty for instance.

See, Canada is more likely to rebel that the former confederacy.
 
I'm pretty sure that we won't be seeing any sort of American rebellion anytime soon. The former Confederates are starting to know their place in the world, even if they don't particularly care for it, and now there's some sense of stability in the American South. That's better than what it was nearly a generation ago, and I doubt the U.S. would ever try to destabilize the peace by doing something as dropping a nuke on another Southern town. It's poor ethical etiquette and would make the U.S. look even worse if they said they would actively use nuclear weapons.

As for Canada rebelling...have you been keeping up with the fact that Canada is becoming more and more Americanized? The states of Alberta and Newfoundland are only the beginning: the idea of any sort of Canadian identity, unless in history books, is a dying breed. Soon, either by intermarriage with American settlers or by choice, the Canadians are going to be absorbed into the U.S. probably with a whisper, because we've had enough bangs already.

A rebellion in a non-American colony is possible, but I see that more from the fact that the colonies for, say, a country like Germany are remote and Germany can't kick the door down immediately because they're not on the border for their enemies. Japan could have similar problems too, I'd imagine.

It's also quite amazing to see how colored opinions can get when one lets in political bias to determine the hypothetical future of a world where our politics have absolutely no bearing upon them. :rolleyes:
 
You're serious about the Confederacy not rebelling? Are you kidding? There was massive sympathy for the south a hundred years after OTL's civil war.

They were an independent, soverign nation for over eighty years. The common name for the US people is 'damnyankee' one word. They don't love those people one bit. The right events could very well make the pot boil over.
 
Yes, Canada is more likely to rebel. But in the case of both rebelling a Confederate rebellion is much more likely to be successful. First of all there are more Confederates, secondly Canadians have been under American rule for a longer time (almost a full generation).

Also terrorism seems to have gotten a head start in TL 191 so what about confederate freedom die hards? they be a nuisance for a while.
 
You're serious about the Confederacy not rebelling? Are you kidding? There was massive sympathy for the south a hundred years after OTL's civil war.

They were an independent, soverign nation for over eighty years. The common name for the US people is 'damnyankee' one word. They don't love those people one bit. The right events could very well make the pot boil over.
If we're talking about on a massive, monumental scale, no, I do not believe that the C.S.A. would try anything. Perhaps small, localized places in areas that weren't really affected by the Second Great War (i.e., Louisiana, Florida) but nothing on the scale of, say, the Canadian Rebellion of '41 to '43 for the U.S. of TL-191.

Again, they don't have to like U.S. occupation, and they probably won't and I can see it largely being a running sore for a long time to come, but really, all the other places that were directly affected by the war I would imagine could come to just grudgingly accept the situation. You're also underestimating the eventual pounding in of the "Equality" pamphlet (as Potter notes at one, it's just a sly way of indoctrination for mostly the younger generations): the C.S.A. would probably have the Population Reductions hammered again and again into their heads, especially children in school and they're not going to be able to ever live that down, and I doubt the U.S.A. would let them.

Cooler heads will probably prevail, in the end. Also considering that I've had regular questionnaire PMs with the OP, I may or may not be educated to make such a guess on the TL's future. :p
 
Question on Mexico

Also dave should I update the map at all? it's on page 7 if you want to mess with it yourself.
I don't recollect what happened to the Empire of Mexico to make it a US puppet. Did the US Socialist Party, with the blessings of the Democrats, fomrnt a revolution down there, overthrowing the Empire and replacing it with Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos? Or was Francisco Jose a complete and utter political *****?:confused:
 
The latter of course. Nothing like a good speech saying how it does not matter how much you knock down the good ole US of A, she will stand back up and sooner or later bury you.
That's a quote from NYC Mayor Nikita Khruschev: "If you try to knock down the United States or cut us in twain, we will get back up on our two feet and WE WILL BURY YOU!"
 
Last edited:
We Will Bury You

3hkhr.jpg

New York Mayor Nikita Khruschev, in his famous Remembrance Day 1961 speech, concluding with a direct reference to the recent Second Great War, "If you try to knock down the United States or cut us in twain, we will get back up on our own two feet and WE WILL BURY YOU!"
 
Last edited:

Tom Kalbfus

Banned
You're serious about the Confederacy not rebelling? Are you kidding? There was massive sympathy for the south a hundred years after OTL's civil war.

They were an independent, soverign nation for over eighty years. The common name for the US people is 'damnyankee' one word. They don't love those people one bit. The right events could very well make the pot boil over.
The Black Holocaust changes everything, you know another name for the South is called the Bible Belt of America, so can you think of anything more Unchristian than the mass gassing and incineration of millions of innocent civilians? I think a lot of God fearing Southern Christians are going to have a lot of trouble with the fact that they let their Southern Government get away from them, terrify them, and commit such inhuman crimes in their name. With the Confederate Cross being associated with genocide, I have doubts there will be a lot of Southern families that would want to assocate themselves with such a think, its much easier to vote in the next election, than to spill ones blood for a morally questionable cause. By the 1960s I'll bet many of them have seen the mass graves, the crematoriums and the gas chambers by now, and being the good Christians they are, they are no doubt familiar with the Golden Rule that one does onto others as one would have other do onto them. So long as the Federal Government gives them a fair shake, I think they will not be so eager to rebel.
 

Tom Kalbfus

Banned
Yes, Canada is more likely to rebel. But in the case of both rebelling a Confederate rebellion is much more likely to be successful. First of all there are more Confederates, secondly Canadians have been under American rule for a longer time (almost a full generation).

Also terrorism seems to have gotten a head start in TL 191 so what about confederate freedom die hards? they be a nuisance for a while.
On the other side of the balance sheet, occupying Canada is not as important to most US citizens as keeping the South from rebelling again. Canada is basically an adjunct to the British Empire, occupying Canada is basically as important to the United States as occupying Vietnam. The terrorism and the bomings and the tolls in human life and suffering involved, one has to ask what are the American people getting out of this? Is it worth continuing this trouble, or is pulling out the better option? Canada is less populated, but it still exacts a toll to occupy the place. Maybe you could send enough Americans over there to overwhelm the Canadian population, but is the short term cost worth the long term benefit? A lot of widows and orphans are going to be asking that question, and many politicians are going to be trying to justify it or use it to get elected on an antiwar platform, just as Democrats used the Iraq War. The socialists are probably going to inflate the toll of continued Canadian occupation, and the media is going to be in cahoots with them until either there is a pull out or the resistance is crushed, and it wouldn't take alot of soldiers coming home in body bags either. Take the Iraq War as an example, it really is a puny war in terms of American casualities when compared to Vietnam and Korea, so as time passes and memories of the Second Great War begin to fade, people are going to begin to ask, "what are American troops doing in Canada, shouldn't they be in the South where all the trouble makers were? After all the South attacked us, while the Canadians only want their independence." Such would be the liberal position in the USA, probably put forth by the Socialists.
 
Socialism is something comparable to what a Democrat was in the 1940s and 1940s [EdM: Actually 1930s and 1940s until Joe McCerthy came along], although these days our Democrats are trending a lot closer to socialism than they used to.
HA! They'rs trending more towards fascism, if you ask me, just like the Republicans! I wish OTL was a TL where one doesn't have to choose between Red Liberal Fascist Party (socially controlling, pro-big-business) and Blue Liberal Fascist Party (socially engineering, anti-business except for the big Wall St banks) if one lives in the good ole USofA!:mad:

Sorry for the rant but I needed to get it off my chest. Carry on.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the US would allow a Confederate Victory by quagmire or whatever, they'll use everything in their article including nukes to make sure the Confederates don't win, of course nukes are a last resort, but now that they got the place occupied, its hard for me to see a convincing argument for them to let them go their seperate way, and also I think some southerners have a conscious, they are probably haunted by the spectacle of those death camps, some people down south might wonder if a revived CSA was a good thing, if it means a return to the likes of Jake Featherston or somebody like him for instance. If they integrate with the USA and get their voting rights back, they can influence who gets elected President and pass laws with their congressmen and Senators. When you consider that Jake Featherston made a lot of Confederate citizens "disappear" without trial or jury, many would no doubt think they were better off under US rule. The Canadians on the otherhand are just occupied, they understand why, but now that the reason (the UK alliance with the CSA) is no longer valid, they probably want their independence even more, and probably want Quebec back as well, and some "mealy mouthed liberal" just might grant them what they want, think Jimmy Carter and the Panama Canal treaty for instance.
I could see a Canadian Autonomous Republic constituted into existence under a Republican (yes! Republican!) President Walter Mondale. Rememberm in TTL, the Repubs are the mealy-mouthed liberals between the Socialists on the left and the Democrats on the right.

But there won't be any Jimmy Carter. HT saw to that. :sad:
 
Last edited:

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
HA! They'rs trending more towards fascism, if you ask me, just like the Republicans! I wish OTL was a TL where one doesn't have to choose between Red Liberal Fascist Party (socially controlling, pro-big-business) and Blue Liberal Fascist Party (socially engineering, anti-business except for the big Wall St banks) if one lives in the good ole USofA!:mad:

Sorry for the rant but I needed to get it off my chest. Carry on.

If you find yourself apologizing for something you haven't even done yet, then don't do it.

This isn't the chat forum. Don't start flaming about politics.
 
The Black Holocaust changes everything, you know another name for the South is called the Bible Belt of America, so can you think of anything more Unchristian than the mass gassing and incineration of millions of innocent civilians? I think a lot of God fearing Southern Christians are going to have a lot of trouble with the fact that they let their Southern Government get away from them, terrify them, and commit such inhuman crimes in their name. With the Confederate Cross being associated with genocide, I have doubts there will be a lot of Southern families that would want to assocate themselves with such a think, its much easier to vote in the next election, than to spill ones blood for a morally questionable cause. By the 1960s I'll bet many of them have seen the mass graves, the crematoriums and the gas chambers by now, and being the good Christians they are, they are no doubt familiar with the Golden Rule that one does onto others as one would have other do onto them. So long as the Federal Government gives them a fair shake, I think they will not be so eager to rebel.

I can't see that. They might be disgusted to some extent towards the freedom party, but that doesn't take away their sense of national spirit. Especially since, in their eyes, the black population was just a bunch of worthless niggers that lost them the war, or whatever racist rhetoric they used. You're not going to get nearly the same reaction as if it was revealed that an equal number of white men were killed.
 

Tom Kalbfus

Banned
Let me rephrase that, no offense intended, but just a simple word substitution for the events of our timeline.
I can't see that. They might be disgusted to some extent towards the Nazi party, but that doesn't take away their sense of national spirit. Especially since, in their eyes, the Jewish population was just a bunch of worthless kikes that lost them the war, or whatever racist rhetoric they used. You're not going to get nearly the same reaction as if it was revealed that an equal number of white men were killed.
I don't know, seems to me that if we apply that to post war Germany (both East and West) they didn't seem all that nationalistic to me, and Germany has been a nation for longer that the CSA under the TL-191 timeline. Now why would you suppose that white southerners would be more nationalistic than the Germans about their respective countries. As I recall, the Germans were enthusiastic about getting involved in Pan-European organizations to cover up their war guilt, for the white southerners it would be getting involved more in the United States. Killing millions of civilians is beyond the pale even for white christian southerners. If they associate more with the Stars & Bars, they are also drawing themselves closer to the black Holocaust. How many folks have you ever seen flying German swastikas and claiming innocently that they are just German nationalists enthusiastic for their country?

Most German civilians tried their best to disassociate themselves with the actually Holocaust, either they "didn't know", they "were just following orders", or they were "afraid of what would happen to them if they defied the authority." I'll bet there would be alot of southerners who would deny having anything to do with Jake Featherston, and that they "feared for their lives and were afraid to help out any blacks, although they did feel sorry for them." Whether this is true or not, most southerners probably want as little to do with the Confederate legacy as they can You realize of course the CSA existed for about the same amount of time as the Soviet Union in real history, yet how many Russians still go around calling themselves "Soviets"? They went back to their original nationality which is Russian, or Ukrainian, and Confederate's original nationality was US citizens or Americans. Southerners have always considered themselves to be Americans, even when they were rebelling and were in the Confederacy, the last letter of the initials CSA stands for their nationality.
 
Here's a modification of that map, adding to India.

Questions

1) Why is Nepal Japanese? It had no strategic value to them and tucked away in the Himalayas.

[FONT=&quot]2) How has Greenland got its independence when in OTL it was Danish until 2008.[/FONT]
 
Well the sky blue color's usually the traditional color of Denmark. Someone just forget to fill in her colonies, when they puppeted Denmark to Germany.

As for Nepal, couldn't tell you how Japan conquered it. Or why they would want to...
 
Top