Comments: 36
bruiser128 [2016-02-22 04:19:46 +0000 UTC]
So when the Warsaw Pact falls apart, will nations be joing the EDC like OTL's EU?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
nanwe01 In reply to bruiser128 [2016-02-22 10:27:59 +0000 UTC]
Well, the European Community becomes a full-fledged federation during the 1980s-1990s as opposed to a sort of federation building up its competencies, like it was in the 50s though 80s. So I suppose that after taking in Spain and Portugal (and Austria and Denmark, but that doesn't matter), the EC will be wary of taking on more poor members, so the new Eastern states will seek some degree of association, probably the tightest one, but full-fledged membership would still be far away, and might only be attainable in the 2010s TTL, I suspect.
I have a continuation of this scenario which combined with some modifications of this map (like trying to find better figures for Commie states) that could give more depth, but I am very lazy about it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bruiser128 In reply to nanwe01 [2016-02-22 12:09:37 +0000 UTC]
Although if it's a federation wouldn't it make more sense to divide Europe along Ethnic and linguistic groups?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
nanwe01 In reply to bruiser128 [2016-02-22 15:19:20 +0000 UTC]
Why? There are still powerful national governments. It's not the US, it's more like Switzerland (or a looser version of Switzerland). Breaking up the Member States is a non-no, obviously.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bruiser128 In reply to nanwe01 [2016-02-22 16:14:38 +0000 UTC]
What about the implosion of Belgium huh, I mean Walloonia is linguistically french while the northern part is Flemish like the Netherlands.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
nanwe01 In reply to bruiser128 [2016-02-22 21:33:56 +0000 UTC]
Yes, so? Why would it implode?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bruiser128 In reply to nanwe01 [2016-02-22 23:27:33 +0000 UTC]
Sorry this was based on one of your earlier maps for this timeline.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
nanwe01 In reply to bruiser128 [2016-02-23 13:12:39 +0000 UTC]
Which one? The one with Germany? That was changed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
nanwe01 In reply to bruiser128 [2016-02-23 21:10:25 +0000 UTC]
Ah right. Well that was a different idea. For this map, the PoD is not no Spansh Civil War, but a different development of political events of France in 1952. After all, the best chance for Belgium to break up was during the Royal Question issue of the late 1940s.
Unlikely, iirc, southern Portugal was to become Godoy's personal fiefdom, a small piece around Oporto was meant to become the replacement kingdom for the deposed duke of tuscany and the rest was to be occupied, but not annexed by Spain.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bruiser128 In reply to nanwe01 [2016-02-23 22:18:14 +0000 UTC]
That makes sense. Although the EU would have been easier without Charles Du Gaulle I think.
Unless of course Napoleon pressures Spain into doing so as deprive Britain it's mainland ally.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bruiser128 In reply to nanwe01 [2016-02-23 23:37:33 +0000 UTC]
I will take my theory as then.^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
RomanianCommunist [2015-04-18 18:56:46 +0000 UTC]
Romanians and Hungarians weren't the poorest people in Europe. gdp per capita is wrong for this two countries.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
nanwe01 In reply to RomanianCommunist [2015-04-19 12:07:47 +0000 UTC]
Could be. Especially in the case of Hungary, but it was impossible to find real figures since the Commies essentially made them all up. So I did what I could with the data I found. At some point and if you can provide realistic figures I can change it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
nanwe01 [2014-10-15 15:16:55 +0000 UTC]
So I made a slight change, whereby the Saar (European Territory of the Saar) is (sort of) independent and is the capital of the European Community with a considerable part of Sarrebruck (Saarbrücken in German), the capital of the territory, directly controlled by the Community as some sort of capital territory.
I thought it was an interesting perspective as well as more realistic in a scenario where France is more pro-European and therefore stronger in the negotiations towards a conclusion to the Saar question.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Jestemturk [2014-06-24 14:21:49 +0000 UTC]
excuse me, but it is a mistake in third map that Turkey is shown of a 'dittatura'. Turkey has been a republic since 1923 and is a democratic country since 1876. You can find out more info about Turkey here: it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turchia
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
nanwe01 In reply to Jestemturk [2014-06-26 15:22:39 +0000 UTC]
First off, a republic =/= democracy, secondly this is alternate history and thirdly, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military… with a martial law and state of emergency in place until 1973 bent on oppressing left-wing movements. That's a right-wing dictatorship, whether the traditional institutions were respected or not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
nanwe01 [2014-06-17 16:29:41 +0000 UTC]
A question open to all: I have a lingering doubt about with to do with the Sarre/Saar. OTL the Germans and the Frnech agreed on a referendum that was a disaster and it joined again but they allowed them to choose on the basis of the 1954 Treaties of the WEU. But iirc the Treaty of Paris makes very limited mention of the Sarre/Saar question and proposals to make it the headquarters of the Community persisted if it was to be independent and indeed the CVP (pro-inedependet Saar party) was quite strong OTL. So, within the limits of realism, maybe I should try to keep it independent if small? Or just stick to what happened OTL but sooner?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
nanwe01 In reply to mdc01957 [2014-06-17 16:24:18 +0000 UTC]
Well yes, but would they join a Europe in which the Armed Forces (even the nuclear weapons) have been Europeanized? I doubt it. This Europe is basically sort of a federation (and I say "sort of", because nothing is simple in Euroland), but the UK has a very close relationship, it's double treaty bound to protect the EC (and viceversa) through the Protocols to the Treaty of Paris of 1952 and the Brussels Treaty of 1948 and there are by the 70s initiatives to create some sort of FTA between them, because while TTL Britain focuses a lot more on the Commonwealth, the (E)FTA is simply not good enough for a large, industrial economy like Britain's.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
mdc01957 In reply to nanwe01 [2014-06-18 12:16:13 +0000 UTC]
That makes sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Matthew-Travelmaster [2014-06-17 16:03:12 +0000 UTC]
Do Germany and Italy have nukes here or are those just Americans ones on NATO bases?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
nanwe01 In reply to Matthew-Travelmaster [2014-06-17 16:20:10 +0000 UTC]
Neither actually. It's a bit more complicated. OTL you had the F-I-G (France-Italy-Germany, how innovative a name, right?) nuclear sharing and development programme that was a partnership under the aegis of NATO to develop nuclear weapons between all countries, to which the UK and the US decided to support and aid provided they were under a common European umbrella organization or control, perhaps under the SACEUR, although sine he was American the French were not so keen on that.
In fact that's a big reason why Euratom appeared, it was its civil nuclear project side.
In any case, OTL it died when De Gaulle came to power and decided to develop the French nuclear programme independently.
TTL, with the successful EDC and the Forth Republic, at first the nuclear programme will develop similarly (that's a big historical trend that I can't change except Soviet disarmament or WWIII). The only obstacle was that the EDC Treaty established a limit on the amount of uranium/plutonium available to the Member States, but I'm pretty sure once the new NATO nuclear doctrine is unveiled in 1955-56 like OTL, they'd amend it. So in reality, TTL the nuclear programme is under a mix of national-European control with some NATO input.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Al3ssio97 In reply to nanwe01 [2015-07-29 18:54:53 +0000 UTC]
Italy didn't have nuclear gun, but nuclear central until the 1987, year when the referendum have closed the nuclear central
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
nanwe01 In reply to Al3ssio97 [2015-07-31 20:55:45 +0000 UTC]
I know that. But this is not proper history, it's alternate history (ucronia)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Al3ssio97 In reply to nanwe01 [2015-08-01 11:46:30 +0000 UTC]
I know there is alternate history
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
nanwe01 In reply to Al3ssio97 [2015-08-02 16:24:37 +0000 UTC]
Then I'm not quite sure as to what the point of your comment was, honestly. Thanks for the interest though. Since you are Italian, would you happen to know of any good sources on the Prime Repubblica? Italian or English is fine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Matthew-Travelmaster In reply to nanwe01 [2014-06-21 09:19:59 +0000 UTC]
So this European community has a shared stockpile of nuclear weapons in case of a nuclear attack on the west. ^^ Interesting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Matthew-Travelmaster In reply to nanwe01 [2014-06-21 10:51:22 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, the West-European-Union never really started, it was just there, but nobody acutally noticed it was there, because of the heavy dominance of the US in NATO.
Yeah, today life is just...dull. I mean we should look back at the 50s and 60s. People had ambitions back then, visions, dreams both in politics and technology. And today....don't even mention it. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1