Miscellaneous, Non-Frivolous ASB Ideas II

[stevep]

Feb 9, 2021 20:27:10 GMT Zyobot said:

Feb 9, 2021 19:29:07 GMT lordroel said:

And of course there are some i would send to a remote island in the arctic.

Every name on my list aside from Churchill and de Gaulle, I'm guessing. Even then, Churchill was probably a dick by modern standards, though I'm less sure about de Gaulle.

  I think by modern western standards virtually all the revived veterans would qualify for that definition.  They would be intensely conservative in a social sense if not a political one.

  The old question of what we do with people who later become war/human rights criminals on a vast scale when they haven't committed those offenses yet, in their personal TL anyway.  You might have to send Hitler to somewhere like St Helena say simply to keep him alive as there could be a lot of people both modern and from 1918 once they hear what happens later who want to 'correct' that status.

  One point with this POD is that, since they were never in the formal military you wouldn't include the leading Bolsheviks, i.e. Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin.

  Would also be interesting what a revived Kemal Ataturk - who is still a successful general to himself and the other revived Turks but not yet the great national leader who founded modern Turkey - would think of its present state with the clerical elements gaining more power?

  Another issue is where are those people appearing?  If its where they lived a lot of people are going to be in places now under different nations.  Not to mention political differences.  Wouldn't want to be a younger Chiang Kai-shek suddenly appearing somewhere in mainland China, or a number of other people.  [Technically China was a member of the allied powers but they were limited to supplying labourers for the western front so not sure who would reappear here and he and other military figures inside China might not qualify].

  Similarly while Nicolas II was never formally in the Russian imperial army his brother was and might hence now claim the leadership of the Romanov dynasty.  Or if you include honourary titles your probably going to have most/all of the 1918 ruling heads of Europe at the time back again.  [Some of the younger members including I think both sons of George V in Britain were junior members of the RN at Jutland.  Hence for my country the queen could find her father, uncle and grandfather suddenly alive and a similar thing will happen in other countries.  Japan was technically an allied power as well so how many Japanese emperors you could be reviving here!

[Zyobot]

Feb 10, 2021 11:43:53 GMT stevep said:

I think by modern western standards virtually all the revived veterans would qualify for that definition.  They would be intensely conservative in a social sense if not a political one.

That's true, though I was referring more to Churchill being a huge dick to India and other baggage of that sort. Which isn't to downplay the outdated views of other veterans, who'll need support to get back on their feet and enter a job market over a hundred years removed from what they're used to. Never mind the mind-blowing revelation that the Great War was overshadowed by an even bigger, nastier conflict less than thirty years after 1918. Ditto with how the Cold War that followed it could've gone nuclear at several points, something that a generation as war-torn as theirs will not be happy about.

One aspect of the silver lining to this, I think, is that they'll be able to keep "Never again!" going for much longer than the handful of WW2 veterans we have left, considering that they're in roughly the same age range as modern Millennials and Gen Z'ers. Once enough of them have adjusted, I can see plenty of TED Talks and panels with surviving WW2 veterans as they compare and contrast their respective experiences. It's no longer possible, due to the former having passed away in 2017 and the latter being a fictional character, but now I'm imagining a conversation between Jerry Yellin and William Schofield from 1917. There'd probably also be an upsurge in the popularity and production of new WW1 movies, though how likely it is that the actual veterans will have the stomach to watch them is debatable, at best.

As another non-frivolous scenario that returned to mind, '1992 George H.W. Bush Enters The 1952 Presidential Election'. Maybe he and a handful of uptimer Red states come back with him at the start of 1951, so that he can help turn the Korean War in America's favor earlier and court enough favor with downtimer voters in so doing. In terms of domestic policy, Bush also seemed to bridge the gap between the Reaganite Right and the mainstream GOP of the time, though "No new taxes!" might come back to haggle him every now and then. To ameliorate this, perhaps Bush drops Quayle from the ticket and taps Eisenhower to be his running mate? That makes political sense to me, and I'm curious as to how the Democrats respond (i.e. whether or not Governor Stevenson runs, considering how he lost to Ike by wide margins both times IOTL).

[Zyobot]

‘Greco-Romans React To YouTube’. This is preceded by a breakdown of what it is and from whence it came, as well as TVs with joysticks to help them navigate the site popping up in every household. Such an experience would prove brain-melting no matter how much explanation the downtimers receive, I’m sure.

[Zyobot]

‘1994 Richard Nixon SI To His 1954 Self’.

[Zyobot]

'2001 Bill Clinton To 1961 John F. Kennedy'.

[Zyobot]

‘1944 Henry Wallace Vs. 1984 Ronald Reagan’. Essentially, this is inspired by an idea I once saw about FDR being forced to withdraw from the race after a surprise health scare, with Wallace taking over and being annihilated by Thomas Dewey on Election Night.

Reagan may be far to the right of what was otherwise viable in 1940s America, but if he had some uptimer states sent back with him and they lent a hand in helping win World War II early, I think he’d have a shot once election season rolls around. Could he win the Republican nomination and crush Wallace in a fifty-state sweep, I wonder?

[stevep]

Mar 8, 2021 3:50:29 GMT Zyobot said:

‘1944 Henry Wallace Vs. 1984 Ronald Reagan’. Essentially, this is inspired by an idea I once saw about FDR being forced to withdraw from the race after a surprise health scare, with Wallace taking over and being annihilated by Thomas Dewey on Election Night.

Reagan may be far to the right of what was otherwise viable in 1940s America, but if he had some uptimer states sent back with him and they lent a hand in helping win World War II early, I think he’d have a shot once election season rolls around. Could he win the Republican nomination and crush Wallace in a fifty-state sweep, I wonder?

  Wouldn't there be an issue of the younger Reagan being about and IIRC he was at the time supporting a radical liberal in California? - Actually checking that was with Upton Sinclair from what I read and he was mainly active in the 1930's so by this time Reagan had possibly moved towards the Republicans?

  I suspect that both candidates would be rather unpopular.  Reagan would be too right wing for most 1944 Americans, especially given their recent experience of the problems of the depression and how Republican hands off policies had failed.  Wallace would be too far to the left and his close support for the USSR would be a serious problem given details up-timers would supply about the cold war, even willing allegations of him being a communist or even a Soviet agent.

[Zyobot]

Mar 8, 2021 12:14:06 GMT stevep said:

Mar 8, 2021 3:50:29 GMT Zyobot said:

‘1944 Henry Wallace Vs. 1984 Ronald Reagan’. Essentially, this is inspired by an idea I once saw about FDR being forced to withdraw from the race after a surprise health scare, with Wallace taking over and being annihilated by Thomas Dewey on Election Night.

Reagan may be far to the right of what was otherwise viable in 1940s America, but if he had some uptimer states sent back with him and they lent a hand in helping win World War II early, I think he’d have a shot once election season rolls around. Could he win the Republican nomination and crush Wallace in a fifty-state sweep, I wonder?

  Wouldn't there be an issue of the younger Reagan being about and IIRC he was at the time supporting a radical liberal in California? - Actually checking that was with Upton Sinclair from what I read and he was mainly active in the 1930's so by this time Reagan had possibly moved towards the Republicans?

  I suspect that both candidates would be rather unpopular.  Reagan would be too right wing for most 1944 Americans, especially given their recent experience of the problems of the depression and how Republican hands off policies had failed.  Wallace would be too far to the left and his close support for the USSR would be a serious problem given details up-timers would supply about the cold war, even willing allegations of him being a communist or even a Soviet agent.

Well, checking Wiki, it seems Reagan's move rightwards started in the 1950s. That aside, I'm specifically talking about his incumbent 1984 self, who'd get sent forty years back along with a number of uptimer states. California, Texas, and some other big ones strike me as the best ones to accompany him.

In a vacuum, I can see him being too far to the right for most downtimers, so I'm guessing he'd have to moderate his platform to appeal to them, moving more into George Bush Sr.'s ideological territory and seeking input from the "Eastern Elite" on that front. That he'll also have to do something about civil rights won't help, so he could probably kiss the Solid South goodbye, if not the for the fact that Wallace is also an avid civil-rights supporter. Honestly, maybe some third-party Dixiecrat would over-perform down there, since the two-party candidates are bleeding-heart (social) liberals by 1940s Southern standards.

However, I'd think that uptimer success in crushing the Axis early, coupled with Reagan's vocal opposition to Soviet power, would lend him enough popularity to stand a chance. Especially when he contrasts himself with Roosevelt and Wallace, both of whom will have to do an about-face on relations with the USSR and disavow their OTL selves' views. The fact that he's also the uptimer "incumbent" would also help him ward off challengers for the Republican nomination, I'd think.

All in all, maybe Reagan wouldn't win fifty states unless Wallace royally torpedoed his own campaign. Ultimately, though, my guess is that he'd pass 270 electoral votes on Election Night, with Wallace and some third-party Dixiecrat competing for second place.

[stevep]

Mar 10, 2021 1:55:36 GMT Zyobot said:

Mar 8, 2021 12:14:06 GMT stevep said:

  Wouldn't there be an issue of the younger Reagan being about and IIRC he was at the time supporting a radical liberal in California? - Actually checking that was with Upton Sinclair from what I read and he was mainly active in the 1930's so by this time Reagan had possibly moved towards the Republicans?

  I suspect that both candidates would be rather unpopular.  Reagan would be too right wing for most 1944 Americans, especially given their recent experience of the problems of the depression and how Republican hands off policies had failed.  Wallace would be too far to the left and his close support for the USSR would be a serious problem given details up-timers would supply about the cold war, even willing allegations of him being a communist or even a Soviet agent.

Well, checking Wiki, it seems Reagan's move rightwards started in the 1950s. That aside, I'm specifically talking about his incumbent 1984 self, who'd get sent forty years back along with a number of uptimer states. California, Texas, and some other big ones strike me as the best ones to accompany him.

In a vacuum, I can see him being too far to the right for most downtimers, so I'm guessing he'd have to moderate his platform to appeal to them, moving more into George Bush Sr.'s ideological territory and seeking input from the "Eastern Elite" on that front. That he'll also have to do something about civil rights won't help, so he could probably kiss the Solid South goodbye, if not the for the fact that Wallace is also an avid civil-rights supporter. Honestly, maybe some third-party Dixiecrat would over-perform down there, since the two-party candidates are bleeding-heart (social) liberals by 1940s Southern standards.

However, I'd think that uptimer success in crushing the Axis early, coupled with Reagan's vocal opposition to Soviet power, would lend him enough popularity to stand a chance. Especially when he contrasts himself with Roosevelt and Wallace, both of whom will have to do an about-face on relations with the USSR and disavow their OTL selves' views. The fact that he's also the uptimer "incumbent" would also help him ward off challengers for the Republican nomination, I'd think.

All in all, maybe Reagan wouldn't win fifty states unless Wallace royally torpedoed his own campaign. Ultimately, though, my guess is that he'd pass 270 electoral votes on Election Night, with Wallace and some third-party Dixiecrat competing for second place.

  I was referring to his younger self being a liberal rather than a conservative although if 1980's California is brought back he would be gone along with most of the evidence of his earlier beliefs that might have caused embarrassment to the older Reagan.

  What time in 44 is the ISOT occurring and what actions is Reagan and his people doing?  There's going to be a lot of disruption to both up and down timers with some big 1980's Republican states moving in which would throw a lot of activities into disorder if not outright chaos.  Unless substantial up-time forces are brought back as well the effects might be dramatic but possible limited due to supply and logistics constraints.  The exception of course would be nukes which could end the war quickly but with a level of devastation that would shock the down-timers.    Especially since you would probably need multiple attacks to force both Germany and Japan to surrender at that point and most up-time nukes are a lot more powerful than the WWII ones. 

[Zyobot]

Mar 10, 2021 11:27:50 GMT stevep said:

Mar 10, 2021 1:55:36 GMT Zyobot said:

Well, checking Wiki, it seems Reagan's move rightwards started in the 1950s. That aside, I'm specifically talking about his incumbent 1984 self, who'd get sent forty years back along with a number of uptimer states. California, Texas, and some other big ones strike me as the best ones to accompany him.

In a vacuum, I can see him being too far to the right for most downtimers, so I'm guessing he'd have to moderate his platform to appeal to them, moving more into George Bush Sr.'s ideological territory and seeking input from the "Eastern Elite" on that front. That he'll also have to do something about civil rights won't help, so he could probably kiss the Solid South goodbye, if not the for the fact that Wallace is also an avid civil-rights supporter. Honestly, maybe some third-party Dixiecrat would over-perform down there, since the two-party candidates are bleeding-heart (social) liberals by 1940s Southern standards.

However, I'd think that uptimer success in crushing the Axis early, coupled with Reagan's vocal opposition to Soviet power, would lend him enough popularity to stand a chance. Especially when he contrasts himself with Roosevelt and Wallace, both of whom will have to do an about-face on relations with the USSR and disavow their OTL selves' views. The fact that he's also the uptimer "incumbent" would also help him ward off challengers for the Republican nomination, I'd think.

All in all, maybe Reagan wouldn't win fifty states unless Wallace royally torpedoed his own campaign. Ultimately, though, my guess is that he'd pass 270 electoral votes on Election Night, with Wallace and some third-party Dixiecrat competing for second place.

  I was referring to his younger self being a liberal rather than a conservative although if 1980's California is brought back he would be gone along with most of the evidence of his earlier beliefs that might have caused embarrassment to the older Reagan.

  What time in 44 is the ISOT occurring and what actions is Reagan and his people doing?  There's going to be a lot of disruption to both up and down timers with some big 1980's Republican states moving in which would throw a lot of activities into disorder if not outright chaos.  Unless substantial up-time forces are brought back as well the effects might be dramatic but possible limited due to supply and logistics constraints.  The exception of course would be nukes which could end the war quickly but with a level of devastation that would shock the down-timers.    Especially since you would probably need multiple attacks to force both Germany and Japan to surrender at that point and most up-time nukes are a lot more powerful than the WWII ones. 

I'm thinking the ISOT happens on January 1st of both years, so that there's still eleven months' time between 1984 states' arrival and Election Night. Ideally, this provides plenty of time for everyone to make heads or tails of what's going on and decide where to go from there. Obviously, this means the uptimers lending a hand in ending World War II early, with lots of vigorous debate over larger policy and legal issues. Copyright, civil rights, the national voting age, and so on. Especially with the uptimers hoping to bring a hammer down on Soviet Russia next, though whether they can pressure Roosevelt to stop or reduce Lend-Lease at this point, I don't know. Considering his dislike for nukes, I'd also guess that Reagan would rule out using nuclear weapons, aside from considering a "sudden test" over a remote island in the ocean that's clearly meant to frighten America's enemies. Even then, I'm not sold on whether he'd give it the green light, though news of the Manhattan Project and the uptimers' nuclear arsenal will spread far and wide, no matter what they do.

Maybe Reagan wouldn't say it outright since it'd frighten the Soviets beyond mere suspicion or reasonably deducing what the uptimers' intentions are, but he might progressively escalate American rhetoric towards communism and "the other menace to global freedom across the Atlantic". In so doing, I think his clear intention to take the fight to the Soviets would give him stronger and perhaps more "genuine-sounding" anti-communist credentials than whatever Wallace or Roosevelt can bring to the table at this point. At best, the latter two can disavow their OTL selves' views and promise to take a hard line against Soviet power. But in Wallace's case, he'd have less credibility, especially if his "overcompensating" to seem at least as anti-Soviet as Reagan is perceived as pandering or flip-flopping, since he'd effectively admit to having been a horrible judge of geopolitics before uptimers informed his otherwise. That'll give Reagan lots of pot-shots during the 1944 debates, I'm sure.

As far as which states get sent back, I already mentioned Texas and California. But now I'm also thinking Florida, New York, and a handful of Rust Belt states--Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio--that voted for Reagan by especially wide margins. Meaning there'd be plenty of "Reagan Democrats" sent along for the ride, which helps tip white working-class votes towards the Republicans this time around.

Texas and Florida being in the Reagan-Bush corner aside, both candidates would have less headway in the Solid South, since they're both radical "racial egalitarians" planning to pass a Civil Rights Act of 1944. In which case, some third-party Dixiecrat throws their hat in and stands tall in a number of the Jim Crow states, though whether they fizzle out thanks to Southern voters reluctantly trading Jim Crow laws for Reagan's perceived strength and track record of anti-communist action remains uncertain to me. On that, you'd probably know more than I.

[stevep]

Mar 10, 2021 16:03:17 GMT Zyobot said:

Mar 10, 2021 11:27:50 GMT stevep said:

  I was referring to his younger self being a liberal rather than a conservative although if 1980's California is brought back he would be gone along with most of the evidence of his earlier beliefs that might have caused embarrassment to the older Reagan.

  What time in 44 is the ISOT occurring and what actions is Reagan and his people doing?  There's going to be a lot of disruption to both up and down timers with some big 1980's Republican states moving in which would throw a lot of activities into disorder if not outright chaos.  Unless substantial up-time forces are brought back as well the effects might be dramatic but possible limited due to supply and logistics constraints.  The exception of course would be nukes which could end the war quickly but with a level of devastation that would shock the down-timers.    Especially since you would probably need multiple attacks to force both Germany and Japan to surrender at that point and most up-time nukes are a lot more powerful than the WWII ones. 

I'm thinking the ISOT happens on January 1st of both years, so that there's still eleven months' time between 1984 states' arrival and Election Night. Ideally, this provides plenty of time for everyone to make heads or tails of what's going on and decide where to go from there. Obviously, this means the uptimers lending a hand in ending World War II early, with lots of vigorous debate over larger policy and legal issues. Copyright, civil rights, the national voting age, and so on. Especially with the uptimers hoping to bring a hammer down on Soviet Russia next, though whether they can pressure Roosevelt to stop or reduce Lend-Lease at this point, I don't know. Considering his dislike for nukes, I'd also guess that Reagan would rule out using nuclear weapons, aside from considering a "sudden test" over a remote island in the ocean that's clearly meant to frighten America's enemies. Even then, I'm not sold on whether he'd give it the green light, though news of the Manhattan Project and the uptimers' nuclear arsenal will spread far and wide, no matter what they do.

Maybe Reagan wouldn't say it outright since it'd frighten the Soviets beyond mere suspicion or reasonably deducing what the uptimers' intentions are, but he might progressively escalate American rhetoric towards communism and "the other menace to global freedom across the Atlantic". In so doing, I think his clear intention to take the fight to the Soviets would give him stronger and perhaps more "genuine-sounding" anti-communist credentials than whatever Wallace or Roosevelt can bring to the table at this point. At best, the latter two can disavow their OTL selves' views and promise to take a hard line against Soviet power. But in Wallace's case, he'd have less credibility, especially if his "overcompensating" to seem at least as anti-Soviet as Reagan is perceived as pandering or flip-flopping, since he'd effectively admit to having been a horrible judge of geopolitics before uptimers informed his otherwise. That'll give Reagan lots of pot-shots during the 1944 debates, I'm sure.

As far as which states get sent back, I already mentioned Texas and California. But now I'm also thinking Florida, New York, and a handful of Rust Belt states--Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio--that voted for Reagan by especially wide margins. Meaning there'd be plenty of "Reagan Democrats" sent along for the ride, which helps tip white working-class votes towards the Republicans this time around.

Texas and Florida being in the Reagan-Bush corner aside, both candidates would have less headway in the Solid South, since they're both radical "racial egalitarians" planning to pass a Civil Rights Act of 1944. In which case, some third-party Dixiecrat throws their hat in and stands tall in a number of the Jim Crow states, though whether they fizzle out thanks to Southern voters reluctantly trading Jim Crow laws for Reagan's perceived strength and track record of anti-communist action remains uncertain to me. On that, you'd probably know more than I.

  Well with those states your really hurt the 1944 US economy as the northern ones were the industrial heartland then while Texas and California were also populous and important.  It might just be that the Democrats, especially if Wallace is that discredited go for a segragationist, which would win the bulk of the old south along with a lot of the rest of the country but probably not enough to stop Reagan given the size of the states that have come along with them.  Think 1980's Florida will come as a shock to the downtimers and I think it was pretty much a backwater in their time.

  If Wallace is the formal Democrat candidate then I would expect a Dixiecrat candidate and he could get a decent showing in a fair number of the northern and western states as well as there's likely to be a huge reaction against the ideas of racial equality and the ending of discrimination.  As well as other issues such as Wade v Roe for instance, which is likely to cause massive outrage across 1940's US.

  The 1980's states will struggle as well with the cutting of so many supply lines and infrastructure links etc.  After all instead of the great source of industrial production Japan is now the enemy!  They should recover fairly quickly, although probably not without some issues then would be busy trying to bring the rest of the country up to date.

  I suspect that Reagan - or at least the US would use nukes to speed up the end of the conflict.  There's going to be no way to keep their existence secret and it would be political suicide for refusing to use them when the alternative is tens of thousands of Americans dying in both Europe and the Pacific theatre's.  Not to mention the threats to civilians in the concentration camps or under Japanese control, with a big demand to end this conflict quickly.  How heavily their used, on what targets and with with effects would be difficult to say.  After all 1980's weapons would be very effective in many ways but supplying them could be an issue and using advanced AAMs against Me 109s or Zeros isn't going to seem that efficient.  All this of course raises issues of who commands those weapons and men during the period before the general election.  After all while their from 1988 was it their American military, its 1944 which means FDR is the legal President and the country is fighting the biggest war in its history.  As such if Reagan did try and block the use of nukes I could see at least some up-timers being willing to listen to down-time calls for their use.

  What would Reagan's stance be on the USSR?  Given the prolonged media/propaganda campaign to represent them as important allies switching to try and overthrow Stalin would be a huge ask for the down-timers and also assorted allies, most noticeably of course the UK.  However insisting that they gain nothing territoriality from the war, i.e. thrown back to their Aug 39 borders would probably go down OK in the US.  How well Stalin doesn't accept that I don't know however, especially since he's not too far from breaking into the Balkans while Overlord is still several months away.  If Germany was crushed quickly it could well be the Red Army getting the boots on the ground 1st.

  There's going to be a hell of a lot of details to sort out concerning laws, land ownership, overseas debts etc which is going to be a real pig to resolve.  Plus come to thing of it there will be some questions over what to do with China?  Given Reagan's record I doubt he will have concerns about supporting Chiang Kai-shek to the hilt despite evidence of his corruption and brutality.  However it could still be an issue 'winning' in China given that Mao's communists could get some indirect support from Stalin. Another issue might be how fast will Reagan push decolonisation?  This will be important to the western allies and he can't try and insist everybody out by 1950 say as that would mean chaos in many areas.

  Steve

[Zyobot]

'1944 FDR Vs. 1972 Richard Nixon'. To modern observers, Tricky Dick may have less "star power" than Reagan. But, considering both how high his approval ratings were during election season and how he's a liberal Republican, he strikes me as someone who'd more easily appeal to downtimer voters.

Pit him against Wallace, though, and my guess is that Nixon would probably get his 1972 landslide twenty-eight years early. In which case, Wallace basically replaces McGovern as the radical left-winger who's crushed in what's potentially a fifty-state avalanche on Election Night. Forty-eight, if Alaska and Hawaii remain territories.

[Zyobot]

‘2021 Internet To 2001’.

[pats2001]

A Tunguska-like meteorite explodes over New York City at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[stevep]

Mar 25, 2021 21:59:22 GMT pats2001 said:

A Tunguska-like meteorite explodes over New York City at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

  I think there is a good chance we have WWIII and a lot of cities get vapourised.  There is some doubt on how many working missiles and bombs the Soviets actually had at the time but they would do a lot of damage where their missiles/bombers get through and the US arsenal was at its peak at this point in terms of total mega-tonnage.  I'm not sure I would live but if I do its probably going to be a distinctly harsher upbringing in the world with a hell of a lot of fall-out.