A different Cold War

[eurofed]

Aug 7, 2016 15:09:22 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 7, 2016 15:02:24 GMT eurofed said:

Well, it depends. The large Asian or African colonies are of course gone (in the former case to form the EAU). Admittedly as an author I'm uncertain whether the post-colonial close bond between Europe and the Maghreb is going to last into the 21st century (which would likely turn the region into an happy exception to the disaster of the Arab world) or it is going to wither due to the rise of Islamism. It might go both ways, so I'd prefer to pick the option that seems most favorable to the established features of the TL. As it concerns the small extra-European possessions of its member states, the EU is certainly more than strong enough to maintain them for the foreseeable future. I prefer not to give too much thought to it, since it is the kind of tedious, nitpicking map-making detail I find extremely boring and irrelevant when I write a TL or make maps for it. Personally I favor the butterfly of the USA absorbing most of the Caribbean and Pacific island territories one way or another out of a sense of geopolitical neatness, but it might go both ways, and both solutions are acceptable to me. It is not like the USA and the EU are going to care either way, given their excellent relations.

To shame would have like something of a United Caribbean Federation who has both good relation with the EU and the US.

Well, Latin America is one of the areas of the world where the strong global trend towards regional/continental supranational unions got a bit delayed for vaious reasons, but it is starting to catch up to speed. As part of it, by the turn of the millennium there is somewhat of a trend across Latin America to establish regional unions that are similar to the old Spanish Viceroyalties or the failed 19th century unification experiments (Central America, Gran Colombia, Peru-Bolivia, Rio de la Plate, etc.), in order to try and balance the weight of Brazil and/or the USA in a more unified Western Hemisphere. However most actors understand they can be useful, but cannot be the final goal, since a united Caribbean or Central America would be more or less just as insignificant on the global/interplanetary stage as Jamaica or Guatemala on their own. For sure, such a small union wouldn't ever realistically be to deal with the larger USA, the EU, the EAU, or India as something in the same league, nor establish and support its own off-world colonies. So most think of these regional union projects as a stepping stone to the greater goal of a continental union that may deal with the world powers as a peer. On the other hand, in this context, united regions/sections within a Pan-American USA or a South American union may be rather useful to balance Brazil (especially a Southern Cone union) or the English-speaking sections (e.g. a Caribbean or Central American union, although conversely the some of the largest Hispanic states, such as Mexico, would have to te broken down in an appropriate number of states to be balanced with the existing 'Old US', Canadian, and Australian states; Mexico as a whole would be too big, the OTL Mexican states too many). For enlargement of the USA, this gets more relevant once the Electoral College got abolished and hence incentive to have too many small states diminished.

So something like what you advocate may well or may not exist at some point, if not necessarily in the Caribbean, but by the 21st century it would be mostly understood as a useful sectional tool or an intermediate stage, rather than a final goal. The emergent mainstream perception is continental unions are the new normal, and the most ambitious/visionary souls are starting to think in terms of (a) united planet(s), and an interplanetary international community, in a century or so.

By the way, as it concerns the post-WWII amendments to the US Constitution, the 22nd Amendment was butterflied away (since FDR died before the end of his second term); the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 27th occurred much like OTL and for more or less the same reasons (except for the non-existing Vietnam War; youth counterculture substituted it as the main reason to lower voting age to 18); the Equal Rights, DC Voting Rights, and Bayh-Celler Amendments were also ratified to guarantee equal rights for women, give the District of Columbia full representation in the Congress, right to vote in the presidential election to its citizens, and full participation in the constitutional amendment process, and abolish the Electoral College by replacing it with direct popular election and a runoff system. The 23th Amendment was incorporated in the DCVRA. Once Puerto Rico and the Canadian provinces (and possibly various Hispanic states as well, such as Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica) joined the USA, a constitutional amendment was also ratified to guarantee the USA would not establish a national language or limit voting rights for reason of ethnicity, creed, or language, and 'domestic institutions' of states (read the civil law system of Québec and the Hispanic states) would be respected. Canada and Australia also negotiated a guarantee of the USA having an adequate welfare system, but I'm unsure if this would best be constitutional, statutory, or both. However ITTL the USA is more progressive since the 1960s-1970s, thanks to no Vietnam War, a more successful Great Society, no Reaganomics or neo-liberism, ever-closer bonds with the Dominions, and a tight partnership with Europe, so it established single-payer universal healthcare on its own, before Canada and Australia got statehood.

[lordroel]

Aug 8, 2016 16:43:14 GMT eurofed said:

Aug 7, 2016 15:09:22 GMT lordroel said:

To shame would have like something of a United Caribbean Federation who has both good relation with the EU and the US.

Well, Latin America is one of the areas of the world where the strong global trend towards regional/continental supranational unions got a bit delayed for vaious reasons, but it is starting to catch up to speed. As part of it, by the turn of the millennium there is somewhat of a trend across Latin America to establish regional unions that are similar to the old Spanish Viceroyalties or the failed 19th century unification experiments (Central America, Gran Colombia, Peru-Bolivia, Rio de la Plate, etc.), in order to try and balance the weight of Brazil and/or the USA in a more unified Western Hemisphere. However most actors understand they can be useful, but cannot be the final goal, since a united Caribbean or Central America would be more or less just as insignificant on the global/interplanetary stage as Jamaica or Guatemala on their own. For sure, such a small union wouldn't ever realistically be to deal with the larger USA, the EU, the EAU, or India as something in the same league, nor establish and support its own off-world colonies. So most think of these regional union projects as a stepping stone to the greater goal of a continental union that may deal with the world powers as a peer. On the other hand, in this context, united regions/sections within a Pan-American USA or a South American union may be rather useful to balance Brazil (especially a Southern Cone union) or the English-speaking sections (e.g. a Caribbean or Central American union, although conversely the some of the largest Hispanic states, such as Mexico, would have to te broken down in an appropriate number of states to be balanced with the existing 'Old US', Canadian, and Australian US; Mexico as a Whole would be too big, the OTL Mexican states too many). For enlargement of the USA, this gets more relevant once the Electoral College got abolished and hence incentive to have too many small states diminished.

So something like what you advocate may or may not exist at some point, but by the 21st century it is mostly understood as a useful sectional tool or an intermediate stage, rather than a final goal. The emergent mainstream perception is continental unions are the new normal, and the most ambitious souls are starting to think in terms of (a) united planet(s), and an interplanetary international community, in a century or so.

By the way, as it concerns the post-WWII amendments to the US Constitution, the 22nd Amendment was butterflied away (since FDR died before the end of his second term); the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 27th occurred much like OTL and for more or less the same reasons (except for the non-existing Vietnam War; youth counterculture substituted it as the main reason to lower voting age to 18), the Equal Rights, DC Voting Rights, and Bayh-Celler Amendments were also ratified to guarantee equal rights for women, give the District of Columbia full representation in the Congress, right to vote in the presidential election to its citizens, and full participation in the constitutional amendment process, and abolish the Electoral College by replacing it with direct popular election with a runoff system. The 23th Amendment was incorporated in the DCVRA.

So is the United States still a two party country or have more been able to set foot in American politics.

[eurofed]

Aug 8, 2016 16:48:45 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 8, 2016 16:43:14 GMT eurofed said:

Well, Latin America is one of the areas of the world where the strong global trend towards regional/continental supranational unions got a bit delayed for vaious reasons, but it is starting to catch up to speed. As part of it, by the turn of the millennium there is somewhat of a trend across Latin America to establish regional unions that are similar to the old Spanish Viceroyalties or the failed 19th century unification experiments (Central America, Gran Colombia, Peru-Bolivia, Rio de la Plate, etc.), in order to try and balance the weight of Brazil and/or the USA in a more unified Western Hemisphere. However most actors understand they can be useful, but cannot be the final goal, since a united Caribbean or Central America would be more or less just as insignificant on the global/interplanetary stage as Jamaica or Guatemala on their own. For sure, such a small union wouldn't ever realistically be to deal with the larger USA, the EU, the EAU, or India as something in the same league, nor establish and support its own off-world colonies. So most think of these regional union projects as a stepping stone to the greater goal of a continental union that may deal with the world powers as a peer. On the other hand, in this context, united regions/sections within a Pan-American USA or a South American union may be rather useful to balance Brazil (especially a Southern Cone union) or the English-speaking sections (e.g. a Caribbean or Central American union, although conversely the some of the largest Hispanic states, such as Mexico, would have to te broken down in an appropriate number of states to be balanced with the existing 'Old US', Canadian, and Australian US; Mexico as a Whole would be too big, the OTL Mexican states too many). For enlargement of the USA, this gets more relevant once the Electoral College got abolished and hence incentive to have too many small states diminished.

So something like what you advocate may or may not exist at some point, but by the 21st century it is mostly understood as a useful sectional tool or an intermediate stage, rather than a final goal. The emergent mainstream perception is continental unions are the new normal, and the most ambitious souls are starting to think in terms of (a) united planet(s), and an interplanetary international community, in a century or so.

By the way, as it concerns the post-WWII amendments to the US Constitution, the 22nd Amendment was butterflied away (since FDR died before the end of his second term); the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 27th occurred much like OTL and for more or less the same reasons (except for the non-existing Vietnam War; youth counterculture substituted it as the main reason to lower voting age to 18), the Equal Rights, DC Voting Rights, and Bayh-Celler Amendments were also ratified to guarantee equal rights for women, give the District of Columbia full representation in the Congress, right to vote in the presidential election to its citizens, and full participation in the constitutional amendment process, and abolish the Electoral College by replacing it with direct popular election with a runoff system. The 23th Amendment was incorporated in the DCVRA.

So is the United States still a two party country or have more been able to set foot in American politics.

Territorial enlargement and more so abolition of the Electoral College and a progressive decisive victory in the post-1960s culture wars certainly provide some meaningful drive for the US party system to evolve beyond the two-party system, although persistence of gerrymandering and first-past-the-post electoral system would still operate as a strong contrary pressure to maintain it. So it could go either way, really, and I'm not entirely sure if there would be enough political momentum to abolish the latter two. Then again, the EC has proven quite resistant to change too IOTL, and ITTL it gets abolished. Since this is a rather optimistic TL, I prefer to err on the side of optimism and assume FPTP and gerrymandering get abolished too like the EC by a grassroots reform movement, paving the way to a general realignment of the North American-Pacific US party system. In these conditions I expect the rise of a four-party system, with a social democratic party (the Greens and left-wing Democrats) probably being named the Progressive party, a center-left party (moderate and centrist Democrats) probably keeping the Democratic label, a center-right party (moderate and centrist Republicans, Libertarians) probably keeping the Republican label, and a right-wing party (the religious right, right-wing Republicans, crypto-racists) probably being named the Conservative or Constitution party, with Canadian and Australian parties merging with this system according to their ideological affinities.

As it concerns the European parties, I expect the Pan-European party system to become rather like the OTL European Parliament groups. There are in all likelihood going to be an European People's Party (center-rightists of Christian democratic or liberal-conservative orientation), a Party of European Socialists and Democrats (center-leftists of social-democratic or Christian Left orientation), and an Alliance of European Liberals and Democrats (centrist liberals) to form the main European parties. Most likely there are also a few minor parties, such as the European Conservatives (center-right and right-wing democratic conservatives) and the European Green Left (democratic socialist and Green politics democratic left-wingers). ITTL general conditions are good enough and the neo-fascists, neo-Communists, Euroskeptics, and radical populists have been so thoroughly discredited by history they are completely marginalized and have no meaningful mainstream political presence.  

[lordroel]

Aug 8, 2016 17:56:42 GMT eurofed said:

Aug 8, 2016 16:48:45 GMT lordroel said:

So is the United States still a two party country or have more been able to set foot in American politics.

Territorial enlargement and more so abolition of the Electoral College and a progressive decisive victory in the post-1960s culture wars certainly provide some meaningful drive for the US party system to evolve byond the two-party system, although persistence of gerrymandering and first-past-the-post would still operate as a strong contrary pressure to maintain it. So it could go either way, really, and I'm not entirely sure if there would be enough political momentum to abolish the latter two. Then again, the EC has proven quite resistant to change, too, IOTL, and ITTL it gets abolished. Since this is a rather optimistic TL, I prefer to err on the side of optimism and assume FPTP and gerrymandering get abolished too like the EC by a grassroots reform movement, paving the way to a general realignment of the North American-Pacific US party system. In these conditions I expect the rise of a four-party system, with a social democratic party (the Greens and left-wing Democrats) probably being named the Progressive party, a center-left party (moderate and centrist Democrats) probably keeping the Democratic label, a center-right party (moderate and centrist Republicans, Libertarians) probably keeping the Republican label, and a right-wing party (the religious right, right-wing Republicans, crypto-racists) probably being named the Conservative or Constitution party, with Canadian and Australian parties merging with this system according to their ideological affinities.

As it concerns the European parties, I expect the Pan-European party system to become rather like the OTL European Parliament groups. There are in all likelihood going to be an European People's Party (center-rightists of Christian democratic or liberal-conservative orientation), a Party of European Socialists and Democrats (center-leftists of social-democratic or Christian Left orientation), an Alliance of European Liberals and Democrats (centrist liberals), that form the three main European parties. Most likely there are also a few minor parties, such as the European Conservatives (center-right and right-wing democratic conservatives) and the European Green Left (democratic socialist and Green politics left-wingers). ITTL general conditions are good enough and the neo-fascists, neo-Communists, Euroskeptics, and radical populists have been so thoroughly discredited by history they are completely marginalized and have no meaningful mainstream political presence.  

Is Japan still a empire ore has that been abolished, and are Thailand and Cambodia also still monarchies.

[eurofed]

Aug 8, 2016 17:59:39 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 8, 2016 17:56:42 GMT eurofed said:

Territorial enlargement and more so abolition of the Electoral College and a progressive decisive victory in the post-1960s culture wars certainly provide some meaningful drive for the US party system to evolve byond the two-party system, although persistence of gerrymandering and first-past-the-post would still operate as a strong contrary pressure to maintain it. So it could go either way, really, and I'm not entirely sure if there would be enough political momentum to abolish the latter two. Then again, the EC has proven quite resistant to change, too, IOTL, and ITTL it gets abolished. Since this is a rather optimistic TL, I prefer to err on the side of optimism and assume FPTP and gerrymandering get abolished too like the EC by a grassroots reform movement, paving the way to a general realignment of the North American-Pacific US party system. In these conditions I expect the rise of a four-party system, with a social democratic party (the Greens and left-wing Democrats) probably being named the Progressive party, a center-left party (moderate and centrist Democrats) probably keeping the Democratic label, a center-right party (moderate and centrist Republicans, Libertarians) probably keeping the Republican label, and a right-wing party (the religious right, right-wing Republicans, crypto-racists) probably being named the Conservative or Constitution party, with Canadian and Australian parties merging with this system according to their ideological affinities.

As it concerns the European parties, I expect the Pan-European party system to become rather like the OTL European Parliament groups. There are in all likelihood going to be an European People's Party (center-rightists of Christian democratic or liberal-conservative orientation), a Party of European Socialists and Democrats (center-leftists of social-democratic or Christian Left orientation), an Alliance of European Liberals and Democrats (centrist liberals), that form the three main European parties. Most likely there are also a few minor parties, such as the European Conservatives (center-right and right-wing democratic conservatives) and the European Green Left (democratic socialist and Green politics left-wingers). ITTL general conditions are good enough and the neo-fascists, neo-Communists, Euroskeptics, and radical populists have been so thoroughly discredited by history they are completely marginalized and have no meaningful mainstream political presence.  

Is Japan still a empire ore has that been abolished, and are Thailand and Cambodia also still monarchies.

Thailand is almost surely still a monarchy, and so does Cambodia, although the two states formed a confederation with decolonization, which later merged with the EAU as a sub-federation (not unlike the Nordic Union merging with the EU). As a matter of fact, depending on political butterflies during decolonization and the defeat of the Communists in Indochina, Vietnam might well be a monarchy, too. Japan's situation is a little more tricky, since ITTL their final defeat was a little more brutal overall (although they were spared being the first victims of nukes) and occurred by heavy conventional bombing and blockade, and Allied invasion of Japan and Korea, rather than the OTL way. In this context, the Americans may or may not have been willing to preserve the Japanese monarchy. It might have gone both ways, although perhaps preservation of the monarchy is still the most likely and less traumatic case. However the likely minimum price for preservation of the institution was abdication of Hirohito and one member of the Imperial family or two going to the gallows or being forced to committ seppuku (such as Hirohito himself and/or his brother Yasuhito, who was involved in the Rape of Nanking).

ITTL the early end of WWII thanks to the anti-Nazi coup and the surrender of the Euro-Axis put the bitter defiance of the Japanese fighting to the bitter end in starker contrast. ITTL the Euro-Axis countries provided the head of Hitler on a platter and allowed the Allies to spare a lot of lives and effort and to drive the Iron Curtain considerably eastward, whileas the Americans had to fight their way into Japan itself to bring it to its knees. On the other hand, TTL circumstances with the Communists looming threateningly on Europe and Asia, taking over China, and then turning it into a disaster area still drove the Americans not to be too harsh with Japan in comparison to OTL, and later allow it to rearm and regain independence. The existence of a united Korea was in this regard a most useful counterbalance. Both states could balance each other, and cooperate to contain Russia and China, and set up the EAU, during and after the Cold War.  

[lordroel]

Aug 8, 2016 18:37:07 GMT eurofed said:

Aug 8, 2016 17:59:39 GMT lordroel said:

Is Japan still a empire ore has that been abolished, and are Thailand and Cambodia also still monarchies.

Thailand is almost surely still a monarchy, and so does Cambodia, although the two states formed a confederation with decolonization, which later merged with the EAU as a sub-federation (not unlike the Nordic Union merging with the EU). As a matter of fact, depending on political butterflies during decolonization and the defeat of the Communists in Indochina, Vietnam might well be a monarchy, too. Japan's situation is a little more tricky, since ITTL their final defeat was a little more brutal overall (although they were spared being the first victims of nukes) and occurred by heavy conventional bombing and blockade, and Allied invasion of Japan and Korea, rather than the OTL way. In this context, the Americans may or may not have been willing to preserve the Japanese monarchy. It might have gone both ways, although perhaps preservation of the monarchy is still the most likely and less traumatic case. However the likely minimum price for preservation of the institution was abdication of Hirohito and one member of the Imperial family or two going to the gallows or being forced to committ seppuku (such as Hirohito himself and/or his brother Yasuhito, who was involved in the Rape of Nanking).

Well if the change exist that Vietnam is still a empire then it also could be for Laos who was a kingdom until the communist took over in OTL.

[eurofed]

Aug 8, 2016 18:48:06 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 8, 2016 18:37:07 GMT eurofed said:

Thailand is almost surely still a monarchy, and so does Cambodia, although the two states formed a confederation with decolonization, which later merged with the EAU as a sub-federation (not unlike the Nordic Union merging with the EU). As a matter of fact, depending on political butterflies during decolonization and the defeat of the Communists in Indochina, Vietnam might well be a monarchy, too. Japan's situation is a little more tricky, since ITTL their final defeat was a little more brutal overall (although they were spared being the first victims of nukes) and occurred by heavy conventional bombing and blockade, and Allied invasion of Japan and Korea, rather than the OTL way. In this context, the Americans may or may not have been willing to preserve the Japanese monarchy. It might have gone both ways, although perhaps preservation of the monarchy is still the most likely and less traumatic case. However the likely minimum price for preservation of the institution was abdication of Hirohito and one member of the Imperial family or two going to the gallows or being forced to committ seppuku (such as Hirohito himself and/or his brother Yasuhito, who was involved in the Rape of Nanking).

Well if the change exist that Vietnam is still a empire then it also could be for Laos who was a kingdom until the communist took over in OTL.

Quite possibly, but in such a case Laos was going to form a confederation with Vietnam much like Cambodia did with Thailand. After they toiled to wipe out the Communists from Indochina, the Western powers were not going to let weak small states in the region that might be vulnerable to renewed Red destabilization. The established post-WWII global trend ITTL is rather hostile to the existence of small states.

[lordroel]

Aug 8, 2016 18:59:49 GMT eurofed said:

Aug 8, 2016 18:48:06 GMT lordroel said:

Well if the change exist that Vietnam is still a empire then it also could be for Laos who was a kingdom until the communist took over in OTL.

Quite possibly, but in such a case Laos was going to form a confederation with Vietnam much like Cambodia did with Thailand. After they toiled to wipe out the Communists from Indochina, the Western powers were not going to let weak small states in the region that might be vulnerable to renewed Red destabilization. The established post-WWII global trend ITTL is rather hostile to the existence of small states.

So are Thailand+Cambodia friendly with Vietnam+Laos.

[eurofed]

Aug 8, 2016 19:03:15 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 8, 2016 18:59:49 GMT eurofed said:

Quite possibly, but in such a case Laos was going to form a confederation with Vietnam much like Cambodia did with Thailand. After they toiled to wipe out the Communists from Indochina, the Western powers were not going to let weak small states in the region that might be vulnerable to renewed Red destabilization. The established post-WWII global trend ITTL is rather hostile to the existence of small states.

So are Thailand+Cambodia friendly with Vietnam+Laos.

As far as I can tell, reasonably so. They share a similar political system and international alignments, do not have any big reason to quarrel (perhaps IIRC there might be one or two potential territorial disputes from the (pre)colonial period, but nothing major), and they have a common interest about containing the Communists and the effects of the situation in China.

[lordroel]

Aug 8, 2016 19:10:25 GMT eurofed said:

Aug 8, 2016 19:03:15 GMT lordroel said:

So are Thailand+Cambodia friendly with Vietnam+Laos.

As far as I can tell, reasonably so. They share a similar political system and international alignments, do not have any big reason to quarrel (perhaps IIRC there might be one or two potential territorial disputes from the (pre)colonial period, but nothing major), and they have a common interest about containing the Communists and the effects of the situation in China.

So there are no tensions or rivalries on the Mainland Southeast Asia, also is Singapore in this universe part of Malaysia or independent as in OTL.

[eurofed]

Aug 9, 2016 2:49:43 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 8, 2016 19:10:25 GMT eurofed said:

As far as I can tell, reasonably so. They share a similar political system and international alignments, do not have any big reason to quarrel (perhaps IIRC there might be one or two potential territorial disputes from the (pre)colonial period, but nothing major), and they have a common interest about containing the Communists and the effects of the situation in China.

So there are no tensions or rivalries on the Mainland Southeast Asia, also is Singapore in this universe part of Malaysia or independent as in OTL.

Singapore is part of Malaysia. As it concerns Southeast Asia, tensions certainly exist, but much like OTL their main source is China, first during the Cold War because of the millions of refugees that flood the region, then after it when China reunifies and rebuilds, and many refugees immigrate to and are integrated by the Western nations, because of its hyper-nationalist attitude. ITTL China certainly has more important territorial claims to make about Tibet, Xinjiang/East Turkestan, Mongolia, and Manchuria, but I would not rule out the Chinese making claims on the South China Sea too, much like OTL. Of course, ITTL China is much weaker, so their ability to enforce those claims is reduced. Tibet is in all likelihood off-limits, since it is protected by India. So do the South China islands, since they are in the EAU's turf. A situation fairly similar to the one between Russia and the EU about Ukraine and the Baltic states. But even empty threats and hostile posturing may be more than enough to keep tensions high. East Turkestan, Mongolia, and Manchuria are a different matter, since both China and Russia are rather weak after the Cold War, so it could go either way. Although the Han in these regions were kicked out by Stalin, so even if the Chinese were ever able to reconquer any of these areas, they would have to apply contrary extensive ethnic changes to stabilize their control. In any case, as an AH author I rather dislike the OTL Sino-Russian border, so whatever happens between post-Cold War China and Russia I hereby declare only one power shall ever control all of Greater Manchuria. Either the 1933-1937 border or the 1689-1858 border shall apply.

As it concerns the ASEAN states, no there aren't any great tensions betwee them, or they would not have been able to form the EAU with Japan and Korea. As far as I can tell, the main source of internal tensions in the federation is the residual socio-economic gap between Japan-Korea and Southeast Asia. Although it is a serious issue at times, it is usually manageable, rather like the domestic situation in India. This is among the reasons the EAU and India, although potential superpowers, have not yet been able to completely bridge the power gap with the USA and the EU.

[lordroel]

Aug 9, 2016 14:05:11 GMT eurofed said:

Aug 9, 2016 2:49:43 GMT lordroel said:

So there are no tensions or rivalries on the Mainland Southeast Asia, also is Singapore in this universe part of Malaysia or independent as in OTL.

Singapore is part of Malaysia. As it concerns Southeast Asia, tensions certainly exist, but much like OTL their main source is China, first during the Cold War because of the millions of refugees that flood the region, then after it when China reunifiesand many refugees immigrate to and are integrated by the Western nations, because of its hyper-nationalist attitudes. ITTL China certainly has more important territorial claims to make about Tibet, Xinjiang/East Turkestan, Mongolia, and Manchuria, but I would not rule out the Chinese making claims on the South China Sea too, much like OTL. Of course, ITTL China is much weaker, so their ability to make something meaningful about those claims is reduced. Tibet is in all likelihood off-limits, since it is protected by India. So do the South China islands, since they are in the EAU's turf. A situation fairly similar to the one between Russia and the EU about Ukraine and the Baltic states. But even empty threats and hostile posturing may be more than enough to keep tensions high. East Turkestan, Mongolia, and Manchuria are a different matter, since both China and Russia are rather weak after the Cold War, so it could go either way. Although the Han in these regions were kicked out by Stalin, so even if the Chinese were ever able to reconquer any of these areas, they would have to apply contrary extensive ethnic changes to stabilize their control. In any case, as an AH author I rather dislike the OTL Sino-Russian border, so whatever happens between post-Cold War China and Russia I hereby declare only one power shall ever control all of Greater Manchuria. Either the 1931-1937 or the 1689-1858 border shall apply.

As it concerns the ASEAN states, no there aren't any great tensions betwee them, or they would not have been able to form the EAU with Japan and Korea. As far as I can tell, the main source of internal tensions in the federation is the residual socio-economic gap between Japan-Korea and Southeast Asia. Although it is a serious issue at times, it is usually manageable, rather like the domestic situation in India. This is among the reasons the EAU and India, although potential superpowers, have not yet been able to completely bridge the power gap with the USA and the EU.

What happen to Kim Il-sung, whit a united Korea that was democratic i would assume he remained in China ore even the Soviet Union.

[eurofed]

Aug 9, 2016 14:10:00 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 9, 2016 14:05:11 GMT eurofed said:

Singapore is part of Malaysia. As it concerns Southeast Asia, tensions certainly exist, but much like OTL their main source is China, first during the Cold War because of the millions of refugees that flood the region, then after it when China reunifiesand many refugees immigrate to and are integrated by the Western nations, because of its hyper-nationalist attitudes. ITTL China certainly has more important territorial claims to make about Tibet, Xinjiang/East Turkestan, Mongolia, and Manchuria, but I would not rule out the Chinese making claims on the South China Sea too, much like OTL. Of course, ITTL China is much weaker, so their ability to make something meaningful about those claims is reduced. Tibet is in all likelihood off-limits, since it is protected by India. So do the South China islands, since they are in the EAU's turf. A situation fairly similar to the one between Russia and the EU about Ukraine and the Baltic states. But even empty threats and hostile posturing may be more than enough to keep tensions high. East Turkestan, Mongolia, and Manchuria are a different matter, since both China and Russia are rather weak after the Cold War, so it could go either way. Although the Han in these regions were kicked out by Stalin, so even if the Chinese were ever able to reconquer any of these areas, they would have to apply contrary extensive ethnic changes to stabilize their control. In any case, as an AH author I rather dislike the OTL Sino-Russian border, so whatever happens between post-Cold War China and Russia I hereby declare only one power shall ever control all of Greater Manchuria. Either the 1931-1937 or the 1689-1858 border shall apply.

As it concerns the ASEAN states, no there aren't any great tensions betwee them, or they would not have been able to form the EAU with Japan and Korea. As far as I can tell, the main source of internal tensions in the federation is the residual socio-economic gap between Japan-Korea and Southeast Asia. Although it is a serious issue at times, it is usually manageable, rather like the domestic situation in India. This is among the reasons the EAU and India, although potential superpowers, have not yet been able to completely bridge the power gap with the USA and the EU.

What happen to Kim Il-sung, whit a united Korea that was democratic i would assume he remained in China ore even the Soviet Union.

Almost certainly, and he remained a minor cog in the Soviet or CCP totalitarian machine. It is fairly likely, and I like to think, that he died in one of the Stalinist purges, the Sino-Soviet war, the 2nd Chinese Civil War, or the 2nd Russian Civil War. Luckily for them, ITTL the Korean people shall never know what bullet they dodged with his family as leaders, although by looking at Russia and China they have every reason to think Communist rule of their nation would have been horrible.

ITTL Communism's reputation is beyond terrible: it is universally recognized as the worst 20th century evil, and Stalin is the typical face of evil everyone thinks of first and foremost. Hitler and Nazism are of course universally thought of as just as horrible, or nearly so, but they typically come as second choice: OTL and TTL reputations of the two main menifestations of totalitarianism are switched. Others do not bother to care about ideological differences, and dump both the Commies and the Nazis in the same category of totalitarian evil. This happens because ITTL Hitler was stopped earlier and killed less people than OTL and his rival dictator, and was overthrown by its own people and Allied military pressure, while Stalin had a larger and widely known body count than OTL and Hitler and rampaged till he died of natural cases. As a consequence, bad guys in fiction most often show a mix of Communist and Nazi traits, with the former prevailing (of course it helps the Soviets and the Nazi shared a lot of features in the first place).

Islamism has the same reputation as OTL as the third main and most recent manifestation of modern evil: the main difference is ITTL Europe has not a large and poorly-integrated Muslim minority to act as a recruiting pool for domestic terrorists, so Jihadism is more or less the same level and kind of security threat for America and Europe. India and the EAU suffer serious damage too, because of their large Muslim communities, although the terrorists give highest priority to the USA and the EU as usual. The Pakistani and Indonesian areas are in better shape than OTL because of their integration in India and the EAU, although they are the most troublesome regions of these unions.

[lordroel]

Aug 9, 2016 16:09:29 GMT eurofed said:

Aug 9, 2016 14:10:00 GMT lordroel said:

What happen to Kim Il-sung, whit a united Korea that was democratic i would assume he remained in China ore even the Soviet Union.

Almost certainly, and he remained a minor cog in the Soviet or CCP machine. It is fairly likely, and I like to think, he died in one of the Stalinist purges, the Sino-Soviet war, the 2nd Chinese Civil War, or the 2nd Russian Civil War. Luckily for them, the Korean people shall never know what bullet he dodged with his family as leaders, although by looking at Russia and China they have every reason to think Communist rule of their nation would have been horrible.

ITTL Communism's reputation is beyond terrible: it is universally recognized as the worst 20th century evil, and Stalin is the typical face of evil everyone thinks of first and foremost. Hitler and Nazism are of course universally thought of as just as horrible, or nearly so, but they typically come as second choice: OTL and TTL reputations of the two main menifestations of totalitarianism are switched. Many other people do not bother to care about idelogical differences, and dump both the Commies and the Nazis in the same category of totalitarian evil. This happens because ITTL Hitler was stopped earlier and killed less people than OTL and his rival dictator, and was overthrown by its own people and Allied military pressure, while Stalin had a larger body count than OTL and Hitler and rampaged till he died of natural cases. As a consequence, bad guys in fiction most often show a mix of Communist and Nazi traits, with the former prevailing (of course it helps the Soviets and the Nazi shared a lot of features in the first place).

Islamism has the same reputation as OTL as the third main and most recent manifestation of modern evil: the main difference is ITTL Europe has not a large and poorly-integrated Muslim minority to act as a recrruiting pool for domestic terrorists, so Jihadism is more or less the same level and kind of security threat for America and Europe. India and the EAU suffer serious damage too, because of their large Muslim communities, although the terrorists give highest priority to the USA and the EU as usual. The Pakistani and Indonesian areas are in better shape than OTL because of their integration in India and the EAU, although they are the most troublesome regions of these unions.

Did Rommel in post war Germany ever manged to go into politics or did he die as OTL. 

[eurofed]

Aug 9, 2016 16:12:26 GMT lordroel said:

Aug 9, 2016 16:09:29 GMT eurofed said:

Almost certainly, and he remained a minor cog in the Soviet or CCP machine. It is fairly likely, and I like to think, he died in one of the Stalinist purges, the Sino-Soviet war, the 2nd Chinese Civil War, or the 2nd Russian Civil War. Luckily for them, the Korean people shall never know what bullet he dodged with his family as leaders, although by looking at Russia and China they have every reason to think Communist rule of their nation would have been horrible.

ITTL Communism's reputation is beyond terrible: it is universally recognized as the worst 20th century evil, and Stalin is the typical face of evil everyone thinks of first and foremost. Hitler and Nazism are of course universally thought of as just as horrible, or nearly so, but they typically come as second choice: OTL and TTL reputations of the two main menifestations of totalitarianism are switched. Many other people do not bother to care about idelogical differences, and dump both the Commies and the Nazis in the same category of totalitarian evil. This happens because ITTL Hitler was stopped earlier and killed less people than OTL and his rival dictator, and was overthrown by its own people and Allied military pressure, while Stalin had a larger body count than OTL and Hitler and rampaged till he died of natural cases. As a consequence, bad guys in fiction most often show a mix of Communist and Nazi traits, with the former prevailing (of course it helps the Soviets and the Nazi shared a lot of features in the first place).

Islamism has the same reputation as OTL as the third main and most recent manifestation of modern evil: the main difference is ITTL Europe has not a large and poorly-integrated Muslim minority to act as a recrruiting pool for domestic terrorists, so Jihadism is more or less the same level and kind of security threat for America and Europe. India and the EAU suffer serious damage too, because of their large Muslim communities, although the terrorists give highest priority to the USA and the EU as usual. The Pakistani and Indonesian areas are in better shape than OTL because of their integration in India and the EAU, although they are the most troublesome regions of these unions.

Did Rommel in post war Germany ever manged to go into politics or did he die as OTL. 

The Valkyrie coup was successful and occurred earlier than OTL, so I assume he survived and played a major role in the anti-Nazi coup, as well as post-Nazi and post-occupation Germany. Not so simple to tell whether he would most likely become postwar Germany's President, Premier, or Defence Minister (and architect of German rearmament within the EDC framework), or even a mix of those roles at different times. But it is easy to tell in these circumstances and with his charisma, chivalrous record, war feats (more impressive ITTL), positive reputation in the Allied powers, lack of involvement in war crimes, and role in the German Resistance, he would become a major heroic figure for Germany, Europe, and the West at large, one of the guys the Western public opinion would think of as a 20th century 'Good German'. There are probably several European monuments, public buildings, capital ships, spacecraft, and the like dedicated to him or named after him, and the European military has him as one of his role models. De Gaulle died during the Fall of France and remained an obscure officer ITTL, so it is harder to tell whom rose to be his French counterpart. His Italian analogue is in all likelihood Giovanni Messe.