Warlord America?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

How would it be possible for America to be carved up and under the control of warlords similar to China? What would be the effects both domestically and internationally as a result? POD is after 1900
 
How would it be possible for America to be carved up and under the control of warlords similar to China? What would be the effects both domestically and internationally as a result? POD is after 1900
Post 1900 POD?

Full scale Nuclear War from say 1975-1990, not much else would do it
 
How would it be possible for America to be carved up and under the control of warlords similar to China? What would be the effects both domestically and internationally as a result? POD is after 1900

Yellowstone supervolcano erupts
Triple the number of dead from the Spanish flu and bring on the great depression 10 years earlier.
 
OK,this is an idea:What if people form cliques in citys,while in the countryside,aristocrats form private armys for self-defense after a destructive government vs. socialist civil war?
 
America has a long history of stable government and high standards of living, famine is unheard off and thanks to the huge resource, industrial, agricultural and scientific base coupled with no viable enemy's nearby it is pretty much guaranteed to at least be a first world state.
 
Wow. It's not like the U.S. goverment is made of adamantium. The inequality on the Gilded Age was strong enough that a major socialist or fascist movement may bring insurgency nationwide. Couple it with a large repression and a major economic crisis and I can easily see independent warlords arising.
 
Wow. It's not like the U.S. goverment is made of adamantium. The inequality on the Gilded Age was strong enough that a major socialist or fascist movement may bring insurgency nationwide. Couple it with a large repression and a major economic crisis and I can easily see independent warlords arising.

There's a difference between inequality and disent and a complete collapse of civil authority in a rich nation with no history of such and is rich for reasons that are already present by 1900.
 
Maybe prohibition can get so out of hand that gangsters start raising militias to protect their wares?
 
Maybe prohibition can get so out of hand that gangsters start raising militias to protect their wares?

...and then Air Pirates!

This alternate timeline incorporates both fictional and actual historic events. According to the series' official backstory, the divergent timeline begins after World War I, when a "Regionalist movement" gains popularity in America following the Spanish influenza pandemic, rallying behind an isolationist platform. Meanwhile, President Wilson's authority was undercut when Prohibition failed as a constitutional amendment leaving the matter to be decided on the state level. The nation soon became polarized between "wet" and "dry" states and checkpoints became a common sight on state borders to stop the flow of alcohol into "dry" states. As the decade progressed, state governments seized more authority, encroaching into areas formerly the responsibility of the federal government, and formed regional power blocs.

The optimism of the Roaring Twenties was upset in 1927 when an outbreak of a deadly strain of influenza in America prompted states to close their borders, further dividing the Union. Though not as deadly as the 1918 pandemic, the epidemic had immense political fallout, bolstering regionalist "strong state" views and decreasing voter turnout in the 1928 elections. Shortly after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, Texas seceded from the United States, forming the Republic of Texas on January 1, 1930. New York was the next state to secede, and persuaded Pennsylvania and New Jersey to merge with it to form the Empire State. California followed suit, creating the Nation of Hollywood, as did Utah, which had already come in conflict with the federal government after the establishment of the Smith Law in 1928 that made Mormonism the state religion. Washington, essentially powerless, was unable to stop the country from falling apart. The federal government made its last stand against the 'People's Revolt' of the bread basket states. When the US Army was defeated by the People's Collective forces in 1931, the fate of the United States was sealed, and the rest of the country dissolved into independent nations by the end of 1932.

Though not directly affected by the Texas Secession, Canada found itself dragged down by the collapse of the U.S., with Quebec seceding in 1930 and the rest of the provinces siding with their nascent southern neighbors: New Brunswick and parts of Quebec joined the Maritime Provinces of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont; Newfoundland joined Quebec; Manitoba joined the People's Collective as did parts of Saskatchewan, with the Lakota nation laying claim to the rest; British Columbia merged with Oregon and Washington in Pacifica; and Alaska claimed the Yukon territories. The core of the former Canadian government established the Protectorate of Ontario. While Ottawa's authority technically extends to Alberta and the Northwest Territories, these areas are mostly no-man's land, while Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island comprise a self-governing body, commonly referred to as the Northumberland Association.

In 1931, the Territorial Government of Hawaii was left defenseless in the wake of the fragmenting country and was overthrown in favor of the monarchy with Jonah Kūhiō as its king. Likewise, America's territorial holdings overseas were surrendered following the nation's formal collapse and the formation of the Federal Republic of Columbia on March 1, 1932.[13]

The resulting nation-states that formed were no longer unified—distrust between them strained diplomatic relations to the point that several small-scale wars broke out.[13][14]

After the dissolution of the United States, the country's interstate railroad and highway systems fell into disrepair or were sabotaged as they crossed hostile borders. Consequently, ground-based vehicles such as the locomotive and automobile were replaced by aircraft such as the airplane and the zeppelin as the leading mode of transportation in North America. Europe soon followed this fascination with aviation to make its own strides into the new, aerially-dominated market. Gangs of air pirates formed in turn to plunder airborne commerce. Although air militias formed to counter the threat, rivalries between the nations of North America reduced their capacity to effectively address this issue, and even encouraged the countries to sponsor pirates as privateers so as to direct their illegal operations against opposing nations. In Europe, privateers and other mercenary groups have been adopted widely by nations who wish to avoid another world war, especially in the case of the Spanish Civil War.

By the end of 1937, North America is a "hotbed of conflict," with multiple pirate gangs and air militias battling for control of the skies. Europe is no better, as Germany jockeys for power while France and Britain look the other way. The Russian States continue to fight their civil war, which threatens to spill over into the Eastern European nations and Alaska. Asia, too, is on the brink, with Japan's recent invasion of China and the continuation of the bloody civil war in Australia.[13][14]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Skies#section_2
 
There's a difference between inequality and disent and a complete collapse of civil authority in a rich nation with no history of such and is rich for reasons that are already present by 1900.

I'll agree with you on that, but life quality could and has been shattered by events like the Great Depression. It's only the strong central democratic goverment that keeps unrest at bay. I think that there may be many PODs that could weaken the goverment enough to make a large scale insurrection/civil war possible. When people start wondering where their food will come from, they may listen to strange personages, and if the govt decides to use the army to repress them, well... things may get nasty. Perhaps never into the scale of China, but something like the Weimar Republic or Europe after WWI.
 
It would require total collapse of the American government and armed forces, which would require something massive and unprecendented. I really don't think you could do this with a post-1900 POD unless it's something literally apocalyptic.

Looking back a long way, you might have this situation be the result of an America that never federalizes under the Constitution, just remains a federation of mostly autonomous states that send representatives to an impotent Continental Congress.
 

Deleted member 67076

Well so much for a timeline idea... Ok assuming the US goeswarlord, what would be the effects domestically and internationally in the short and long term?
 
Well so much for a timeline idea... Ok assuming the US goeswarlord, what would be the effects domestically and internationally in the short and long term?
If something bad enough to cause the US to go warlord with a post 1900 POD occurs, then that event will do the same to the rest of the world

Such an event would require megadeath level casualties and severe environmental damage is likely
 
I'll agree with you on that, but life quality could and has been shattered by events like the Great Depression. It's only the strong central democratic goverment that keeps unrest at bay. I think that there may be many PODs that could weaken the goverment enough to make a large scale insurrection/civil war possible. When people start wondering where their food will come from, they may listen to strange personages, and if the govt decides to use the army to repress them, well... things may get nasty. Perhaps never into the scale of China, but something like the Weimar Republic or Europe after WWI.

The restoration of international trade along with the end of the Dustbowl period of drought was likely going to help the US limp out of the Depression in the end, albeit without the speedy recovery brought on by the New Deal and later WWII. One depression or period of economic downturn doesn't destroy a place unless it has ongoing and systemic issues that make it particularly vulnerable to civil unrest. In other words, there's a difference in the sorts of things that happen to the Russian Empire circa 1917 and the United States circa 1931.

You make the comparison to Weimar Germany and "Europe" after WWI, even though there is a world of difference between unstable postwar states like Bulgaria and longstanding, stable governments that weathered the interwar period about as well as they could have like Britain. There really isn't much comparing the situation of the US and the Weimar Republic. The Weimar Republic was an inherently flawed system in a country that had never had real democracy before, the President of the Weimar Republic was quite literally called Ersatzkaiser (replacement Kaiser) during this period because of the similarities between itself and the old German monarch. This reflects two fundamental things about the interwar republic: that it was pretty much an experiment in introducing democracy to a place that hadn't had it, and that it had a whole lot of problems with separation of power. It was supposed to be the perfect system with a strong legislature, a strong executive, and Swiss-style rule by referendum. In reality, all of these things backfired spectacularly.

The US is a country with a longstanding tradition of democracy, rule of law, and perhaps chief among them, separation of powers so that no one branch monopolizes power exclusively.

The US will have problems that are different from that of the Weimar Republic, and the response will similarly be different. You really exaggerate how much damage the Depression has the capacity to do, even at the height of the Dustbowl, the United States could still feed the majority of the populace. A fact about the Depression is that it was produced and exacerbated by spectacular mismanagement: it could certainly have been worse, but it was pretty bad as it was: mass drought in the grain belt, poverty and mass unemployment, it was not an easy time, and it did not result in widespread civil unrest that didn't threaten a sitting state government, let alone the federal government of the entire United States.

That should really say a lot.
 
You know when I saw this threads title the first thing I tough off was this right here. :D:cool: This actually could be a good example of what a Warlord America would look like, its really the only example of such a scenario I know off. Not sure how plausible it is thought, the guy who made only said that "Black Friday was far worse". Still, a good example none the less. :cool:

warlord_america_by_sapiento-d35i3h1.jpg


source
 
You know when I saw this threads title the first thing I tough off was this right here. :D:cool: This actually could be a good example of what a Warlord America would look like, its really the only example of such a scenario I know off. Not sure how plausible it is thought, the guy who made only said that "Black Friday was far worse". Still, a good example none the less. :cool:



source

Territories with names like "Upper Midwest" sound a bit awkward.
 

Deleted member 67076

Territories with names like "Upper Midwest" sound a bit awkward.
Yea I'd suggest something like a Native American name for the region. Also that pic is similar to what I was thinking of. Thanks for finding it!
 
Wow. It's not like the U.S. goverment is made of adamantium. The inequality on the Gilded Age was strong enough that a major socialist or fascist movement may bring insurgency nationwide. Couple it with a large repression and a major economic crisis and I can easily see independent warlords arising.

That would be pre-1900. Post 1900 America is pretty much made of Adamantium.
 
The restoration of international trade along with the end of the Dustbowl period of drought was likely going to help the US limp out of the Depression in the end, albeit without the speedy recovery brought on by the New Deal and later WWII. One depression or period of economic downturn doesn't destroy a place unless it has ongoing and systemic issues that make it particularly vulnerable to civil unrest. In other words, there's a difference in the sorts of things that happen to the Russian Empire circa 1917 and the United States circa 1931.

You make the comparison to Weimar Germany and "Europe" after WWI, even though there is a world of difference between unstable postwar states like Bulgaria and longstanding, stable governments that weathered the interwar period about as well as they could have like Britain. There really isn't much comparing the situation of the US and the Weimar Republic. The Weimar Republic was an inherently flawed system in a country that had never had real democracy before, the President of the Weimar Republic was quite literally called Ersatzkaiser (replacement Kaiser) during this period because of the similarities between itself and the old German monarch. This reflects two fundamental things about the interwar republic: that it was pretty much an experiment in introducing democracy to a place that hadn't had it, and that it had a whole lot of problems with separation of power. It was supposed to be the perfect system with a strong legislature, a strong executive, and Swiss-style rule by referendum. In reality, all of these things backfired spectacularly.

The US is a country with a longstanding tradition of democracy, rule of law, and perhaps chief among them, separation of powers so that no one branch monopolizes power exclusively.

The US will have problems that are different from that of the Weimar Republic, and the response will similarly be different. You really exaggerate how much damage the Depression has the capacity to do, even at the height of the Dustbowl, the United States could still feed the majority of the populace. A fact about the Depression is that it was produced and exacerbated by spectacular mismanagement: it could certainly have been worse, but it was pretty bad as it was: mass drought in the grain belt, poverty and mass unemployment, it was not an easy time, and it did not result in widespread civil unrest that didn't threaten a sitting state government, let alone the federal government of the entire United States.

That should really say a lot.

Fair enough. My comparison with "Europe" (I plead guilty of overgeneralizing :eek:) was that of the inestability of even "developed" states when the economy went bad enough (of course, I kind of overlooked that America was untouched by the war). But to me, it seems strange that after such a harsh time as the Great Depression, there weren't extremist risings or attempts against the goverment. Somehow, I think that the U.S. had a stroke of luck with their institutions during that time; certainly a weaker country would have fallen into civil unrest, at least (to be clear, I consider an actual Civil War in the U.S. after 1900 ASB)

That would be pre-1900. Post 1900 America is pretty much made of Adamantium.

If history taught us something, is that any goverment can fall. Politics and Economics are cruel mistresses. We just need to find the right POD.
 
Top