Great update Mac! I like how this is (until a few days now) future history at the moment 
The Union Forever: A TL
- Thread starter Mac Gregor
- Start date
And how large is state debt of the state? And is there any discussion about amendment for presidential term limitations? There has been two presidents who have served three terms.
That does beg the question what are the plans for the money that is being used for paying off the debt once it is paid off.
This war would likely bring in several competing alliances
Surely. This would bring almost all western great powers.
So WWIII starts over Africa?
Well, They wouldn't call that as WW3 when there hasn't been WW2 either. If you then don't think Asia-Pacific War. But this would be one of worst war in history.
Africa, probably around the AAA nations.
Asia, the region around the Technocratic Union, I bet.
Europe, no idea.
Oceania, the Technocratic Union extending south....
Well, thing is, if it's the AAA and the Technocracy, the primary theater would be in Africa in general, compounded by naval and air actions in the far east.
It's likely that the AAA would try not to draw the Turin Pact into the war. For one, every member of the Alliance is subsaharan, and while the Turin Pact does have a large presence in Africa, it's in North Africa. It wouldn't really add strategically to their depth.
So, it's likely that it'd be the Commonwealth vs the AAA & the Technocracy, with other alliances eventually joining in. Let's look at the primary fronts that might face assault.
Nigeria would face a two-front assault, as West Africa would press from the west and Umbangi would provide some pressure to the East. As West Africa can't press north (again, neither Morocco, which probably leans sliiiightly to either the LAR or the Turin Pact, nor Ghana/the Sahara Republic, provide them depth), and conquering Equatorial Guinea and Liberia don't really add much of a strategic advantage (besides ticking off the LAR in the latter case), so West Africa would be forced to invade into Nigeria. Umbangi's second front wouldn't add much to the assault, as they have other priorities, but attacking and knocking out Nigeria would be a major victory for them, and would open up the rest of Africa for West Africa to operate through (as the Commonwealth will have control of the sea).
Simultaneously, Umbangi and Abyssinia/Aksum will invade Gordonia, in an attempt to link up with each other as well as creating another connection with Congo. As Gordonia is so remote from the major sources of Commonwealth power, it would be best to strike first and eliminate them from contention before East Africa can reinforce. Then, the AAA can assist in holding off East African counterattacks.
Angola and Mozambique will likely try to bridge the gap in Zambezi, creating an AAA Pink Map in the south. It would be their responsibility to hold off South African reprisals while the stronger members in the North consolidate their gains. If West Africa links up with Abyssinia et al, they can then attempt to provide a front against East Africa and march south into Katanga as well. I'm assuming here that they are avoiding the I.C.R., as I believe that is AES aligned. The key concern for the AAA here is to NOT bring in as many alternate alliances as possible.
In the ideal scenario for them, they manage to overrun enough of Nigeria so West Africa can field further assaults elsewhere in the continent and the AAA spreads to every country that they invade, with puppet regimes being set up in a balkanized Nigeria and East Africa. Then, after a period of temporary peace, perhaps 10-15 years in the future, they'd launch another assault to take the German aligned states and, in the end, create a unified alliance, with the only holdout being South Africa. Minor states such as Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Puntland, Somalia, etc can be taken later on once major opponents are defeated.
...Now I'm reminded of Napoleon IV's plans for his world conquest. First step: Take over minor states, establish puppet regimes, rebuild. Next step, a decade or two later, take over anything nearby as you cannot effectively be fought and neuter opposition.
For the Commonwealth, the key here is Nigeria and East Africa. As long as those two nations manage to hold, any sort of AAA advance will be pretty much stalled. South Africa, I feel, can easily take Angola and Mozambique combined, especially if prepared. If that is the case, then South Africa can maintain the corridor to East Africa, force Angola/Mozambique into submission, and join the front in the North to liberate Gordonia (which I think would fall in any case).
And we're also assuming that the AES/Turin Pact/LAR don't intervene on any sort of level as well. If any other alliance joins the Commonwealth (as all of those alliances are opposed to the Technocracy, and as a result the AAA), then the AAA's fortunes fall drastically, as new fronts are opened against them and their own military is forced to defend incursions. Economically, they are cut off from the largest trade partner (which I imagine is China), so the economy may devolve into a downward spiral.
------------
The Technocracy doesn't have the power projection to effectively intervene in Africa, but they can play havoc by diverting resources and terrorizing Madras/Malaya/Australia and the rest of British possessions. Burma is in dire straits as well, as the Chinese army likely will overwhelm any opposition unless, again, the defenders are well prepared for the assault.
Considering the threat that continued Technocratic expansion entails, it's likely that further expansion brings in the PTO and perhaps the CSAS as well. Russia will also join in against the Technocracy if there is any chance that the Technocrats will lose. They will want to reclaim Manchuria.
The biggest wildcards would be India and Indonesia, though, and I'm not sure how they're aligned and if they'd even be interested in either side.
------------
On another note, update the old Alliance map to 2018. Hopefully everything is good, though many changes aren't shown. Biggest things I can think of is Umbangi and Angola now being AAA, Suriname joining the LAR, Netherlands leaving the AES. Of territorial changes, the only one that I think would be shown is Madras gaining the Andamans, the rest were changes in status while maintaining their alliances.
It's likely that the AAA would try not to draw the Turin Pact into the war. For one, every member of the Alliance is subsaharan, and while the Turin Pact does have a large presence in Africa, it's in North Africa. It wouldn't really add strategically to their depth.
So, it's likely that it'd be the Commonwealth vs the AAA & the Technocracy, with other alliances eventually joining in. Let's look at the primary fronts that might face assault.
Nigeria would face a two-front assault, as West Africa would press from the west and Umbangi would provide some pressure to the East. As West Africa can't press north (again, neither Morocco, which probably leans sliiiightly to either the LAR or the Turin Pact, nor Ghana/the Sahara Republic, provide them depth), and conquering Equatorial Guinea and Liberia don't really add much of a strategic advantage (besides ticking off the LAR in the latter case), so West Africa would be forced to invade into Nigeria. Umbangi's second front wouldn't add much to the assault, as they have other priorities, but attacking and knocking out Nigeria would be a major victory for them, and would open up the rest of Africa for West Africa to operate through (as the Commonwealth will have control of the sea).
Simultaneously, Umbangi and Abyssinia/Aksum will invade Gordonia, in an attempt to link up with each other as well as creating another connection with Congo. As Gordonia is so remote from the major sources of Commonwealth power, it would be best to strike first and eliminate them from contention before East Africa can reinforce. Then, the AAA can assist in holding off East African counterattacks.
Angola and Mozambique will likely try to bridge the gap in Zambezi, creating an AAA Pink Map in the south. It would be their responsibility to hold off South African reprisals while the stronger members in the North consolidate their gains. If West Africa links up with Abyssinia et al, they can then attempt to provide a front against East Africa and march south into Katanga as well. I'm assuming here that they are avoiding the I.C.R., as I believe that is AES aligned. The key concern for the AAA here is to NOT bring in as many alternate alliances as possible.
In the ideal scenario for them, they manage to overrun enough of Nigeria so West Africa can field further assaults elsewhere in the continent and the AAA spreads to every country that they invade, with puppet regimes being set up in a balkanized Nigeria and East Africa. Then, after a period of temporary peace, perhaps 10-15 years in the future, they'd launch another assault to take the German aligned states and, in the end, create a unified alliance, with the only holdout being South Africa. Minor states such as Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Puntland, Somalia, etc can be taken later on once major opponents are defeated.
...Now I'm reminded of Napoleon IV's plans for his world conquest. First step: Take over minor states, establish puppet regimes, rebuild. Next step, a decade or two later, take over anything nearby as you cannot effectively be fought and neuter opposition.
For the Commonwealth, the key here is Nigeria and East Africa. As long as those two nations manage to hold, any sort of AAA advance will be pretty much stalled. South Africa, I feel, can easily take Angola and Mozambique combined, especially if prepared. If that is the case, then South Africa can maintain the corridor to East Africa, force Angola/Mozambique into submission, and join the front in the North to liberate Gordonia (which I think would fall in any case).
And we're also assuming that the AES/Turin Pact/LAR don't intervene on any sort of level as well. If any other alliance joins the Commonwealth (as all of those alliances are opposed to the Technocracy, and as a result the AAA), then the AAA's fortunes fall drastically, as new fronts are opened against them and their own military is forced to defend incursions. Economically, they are cut off from the largest trade partner (which I imagine is China), so the economy may devolve into a downward spiral.
------------
The Technocracy doesn't have the power projection to effectively intervene in Africa, but they can play havoc by diverting resources and terrorizing Madras/Malaya/Australia and the rest of British possessions. Burma is in dire straits as well, as the Chinese army likely will overwhelm any opposition unless, again, the defenders are well prepared for the assault.
Considering the threat that continued Technocratic expansion entails, it's likely that further expansion brings in the PTO and perhaps the CSAS as well. Russia will also join in against the Technocracy if there is any chance that the Technocrats will lose. They will want to reclaim Manchuria.
The biggest wildcards would be India and Indonesia, though, and I'm not sure how they're aligned and if they'd even be interested in either side.
------------
On another note, update the old Alliance map to 2018. Hopefully everything is good, though many changes aren't shown. Biggest things I can think of is Umbangi and Angola now being AAA, Suriname joining the LAR, Netherlands leaving the AES. Of territorial changes, the only one that I think would be shown is Madras gaining the Andamans, the rest were changes in status while maintaining their alliances.
Last edited:
Luminous, cool map. Off the top of my head the only correction I see is that the Philippines are not in the LAR.
Ah, right! Sorry; I must have misinterpreted earlier posts. The Philippines are just another US ally in this situation, then, and not actually subject to the LAR? They've that naval base in Subic Bay, after all, and I knew they were an ally. Figured they might have had membership extended to keep it in the family.
Changing them to PTO only, like Japan. Give me a minute to finish the edit on the previous post.
I submit for the approval of the author, this quick update for New Zealand's political activities, because it feels like the timeline is gonna heat up soon.
New Zealand: 1980-2000
New Zealand: 2001-2010
New Zealand: 2010-2015
New Zealand Political History, 2016-2018
List of Prime Ministers of New Zealand
Sir William Fox (No Party) (1861-1862)
Alfred Domett (No Party) (1862-1863)
Sir Frederick Whitaker (No Party) (1863-1864)
Sir Edward Stafford (No Party) (1864-1869)
Sir William Fox (No Party) (1869-1872) *
Sir Francis Dillon Bell (No Party) (1872-1875)
Sir David Monro (No Party) (1875-1877)+
Sir Charles Clifford, 1st Baronet (No Party) (1877)
Sir William Fitzherbet (No Party (1877-1878)
Sir Charles Clifford, 1st Baronet (No Party) (1878-1886)
Sir George Maurice O'Rorke (No Party) (1886-1889)
Sir William Steward (Liberal) (1889-1892) **
Sir George Maurice O'Rorke (Liberal) (1892-1897)
Sir Robert Arthur Guiness (Liberal) (1897-1901)
Richard Seddon (Liberal) (1901-1906) +
Sir Robert Arthur Guiness (Liberal) (1906-1911) ***
Sir Frederick Lang (Reform) (1911-1920) ****
Sir William Newport (Reform) (1920)
Sir Rupert Scrivener (Liberal) (1920-1922)
Vincent Brimble (NZ Whig) (1922-1923) *****, V*
Nigel Plaskitt (Liberal) (1923-1926)
Malcom Terris (Reform) (1926-1934)
Nigel Plaskitt (Liberal) (1934-1937)
Malcom Terris (National) (1937-1940) V**
Terrance Dicks (Liberal) (1940-1950)
Richard Irvine Hurst (National) (1950-61) +
Lawrence Williams (National) (1961-1963) V***
John Robinson (National) (1963-1964)
Margaret Lewis (Liberal) (1964-1968) V****
Sir Nigel Hughes (Liberal) (1968- 1976) X
Sir Robert Irvine Hurst (National) (1976-1983) X*, X**
John Partridge (Liberal) (1983-1990) X***
Ronald Levin (Liberal) (1990-1993) X****, XV
Jacob Hewit (Liberal) (1993)
Audrey Bevin (Social Democrat) (1993-1995) XV*, XV**
Jacob Hewit (Liberal) (1995)
Jonathan Braxton (National) (1995-2000)
Michael Mateparae (National) (2000-2004) XV***
Christopher Brown (National) (2004-2006)
Denis Hewit (Liberal) (2006-2010) XV****
Lawrence Cartwright (Liberal) (2010-201X) XX, XX*
*Title officially changed from "Colonial Secretary" to "Premier"
** First Official Political Party, the Liberal Party, Founded in 1891
*** Title officially changed from "Premier" to "Prime Minister" after New Zealand Achieved the status of Dominion
**** The Second Official Political Party, the Reform Party, Founded in 1911
***** The Third Official Political Party, the New Zealand Whig Party, Founded in 1921
V* This is the first coalition government, NZ Whigs and Reform Party
V** The Reform and NZ Whigs combined to form the National Party
V*** Forced out of office by vote of no confidence
V**** First female Prime Minister
X Lost an election due to his opposition to New Zealand's involvement in the war in India
X* The son of former Prime Minister Richard Irvine Hurst
X** In 1980 Prime Minister Robert Irvine Hurst along with a number of other Commonwealth leaders are knighted
X*** Legislature Reform Act of 1984 passed
X**** First Jewish Prime Minister
XV Stepped down after scandal
XV* First Social-Democrat Prime Minister
XV** Removed by a vote of no confidence
XV*** First Ethnic Maori Prime Minister
XV**** Brother of Prime Minister Jacob Hewit
XX Coalition with the Nationals from 2015-2016
XX* Coalition with the Ecoists
+ Died in Office
After the failed Republican Plebiscite on October 26th of 2016, PM Cartwright called an election to be held in early December. The failed plebiscite damaged the public image of the National Party and its leader, Jeremy Baldwin, who stubbornly held onto his leadership position within the party. A number of national MPs chose to run as Conservatives or Independents, and the other major parties all attempted to scoop up as many soon to be former National seats as they could. Baldwin and his remaining supporters tried to portray the failed plebiscite as a victory, describing it as merely the first step in achieving true independence from the crown. However, the election results would not turn out well for the Nationals, losing 21 of their 30 seats in the Assembly, and losing all of their seats in the Senate, all but one deciding to run as a Conservative, and the last one losing their seat to a Liberal. They became the smallest party in Parliament aside from the Independents.
2016 Election
Assembly
Liberal: 51
Conservative: 37
Ecoist: 14
Maori: 10
National: 9
Independents: 4
Senate
Liberal: 12
Conservative: 11
Maori: 7
Ecoist: 5
Governing Coalition: Liberal-Ecoist
New Zealand: 1980-2000
New Zealand: 2001-2010
New Zealand: 2010-2015
New Zealand Political History, 2016-2018
List of Prime Ministers of New Zealand
Sir William Fox (No Party) (1861-1862)
Alfred Domett (No Party) (1862-1863)
Sir Frederick Whitaker (No Party) (1863-1864)
Sir Edward Stafford (No Party) (1864-1869)
Sir William Fox (No Party) (1869-1872) *
Sir Francis Dillon Bell (No Party) (1872-1875)
Sir David Monro (No Party) (1875-1877)+
Sir Charles Clifford, 1st Baronet (No Party) (1877)
Sir William Fitzherbet (No Party (1877-1878)
Sir Charles Clifford, 1st Baronet (No Party) (1878-1886)
Sir George Maurice O'Rorke (No Party) (1886-1889)
Sir William Steward (Liberal) (1889-1892) **
Sir George Maurice O'Rorke (Liberal) (1892-1897)
Sir Robert Arthur Guiness (Liberal) (1897-1901)
Richard Seddon (Liberal) (1901-1906) +
Sir Robert Arthur Guiness (Liberal) (1906-1911) ***
Sir Frederick Lang (Reform) (1911-1920) ****
Sir William Newport (Reform) (1920)
Sir Rupert Scrivener (Liberal) (1920-1922)
Vincent Brimble (NZ Whig) (1922-1923) *****, V*
Nigel Plaskitt (Liberal) (1923-1926)
Malcom Terris (Reform) (1926-1934)
Nigel Plaskitt (Liberal) (1934-1937)
Malcom Terris (National) (1937-1940) V**
Terrance Dicks (Liberal) (1940-1950)
Richard Irvine Hurst (National) (1950-61) +
Lawrence Williams (National) (1961-1963) V***
John Robinson (National) (1963-1964)
Margaret Lewis (Liberal) (1964-1968) V****
Sir Nigel Hughes (Liberal) (1968- 1976) X
Sir Robert Irvine Hurst (National) (1976-1983) X*, X**
John Partridge (Liberal) (1983-1990) X***
Ronald Levin (Liberal) (1990-1993) X****, XV
Jacob Hewit (Liberal) (1993)
Audrey Bevin (Social Democrat) (1993-1995) XV*, XV**
Jacob Hewit (Liberal) (1995)
Jonathan Braxton (National) (1995-2000)
Michael Mateparae (National) (2000-2004) XV***
Christopher Brown (National) (2004-2006)
Denis Hewit (Liberal) (2006-2010) XV****
Lawrence Cartwright (Liberal) (2010-201X) XX, XX*
*Title officially changed from "Colonial Secretary" to "Premier"
** First Official Political Party, the Liberal Party, Founded in 1891
*** Title officially changed from "Premier" to "Prime Minister" after New Zealand Achieved the status of Dominion
**** The Second Official Political Party, the Reform Party, Founded in 1911
***** The Third Official Political Party, the New Zealand Whig Party, Founded in 1921
V* This is the first coalition government, NZ Whigs and Reform Party
V** The Reform and NZ Whigs combined to form the National Party
V*** Forced out of office by vote of no confidence
V**** First female Prime Minister
X Lost an election due to his opposition to New Zealand's involvement in the war in India
X* The son of former Prime Minister Richard Irvine Hurst
X** In 1980 Prime Minister Robert Irvine Hurst along with a number of other Commonwealth leaders are knighted
X*** Legislature Reform Act of 1984 passed
X**** First Jewish Prime Minister
XV Stepped down after scandal
XV* First Social-Democrat Prime Minister
XV** Removed by a vote of no confidence
XV*** First Ethnic Maori Prime Minister
XV**** Brother of Prime Minister Jacob Hewit
XX Coalition with the Nationals from 2015-2016
XX* Coalition with the Ecoists
+ Died in Office
After the failed Republican Plebiscite on October 26th of 2016, PM Cartwright called an election to be held in early December. The failed plebiscite damaged the public image of the National Party and its leader, Jeremy Baldwin, who stubbornly held onto his leadership position within the party. A number of national MPs chose to run as Conservatives or Independents, and the other major parties all attempted to scoop up as many soon to be former National seats as they could. Baldwin and his remaining supporters tried to portray the failed plebiscite as a victory, describing it as merely the first step in achieving true independence from the crown. However, the election results would not turn out well for the Nationals, losing 21 of their 30 seats in the Assembly, and losing all of their seats in the Senate, all but one deciding to run as a Conservative, and the last one losing their seat to a Liberal. They became the smallest party in Parliament aside from the Independents.
2016 Election
Assembly
Liberal: 51
Conservative: 37
Ecoist: 14
Maori: 10
National: 9
Independents: 4
Senate
Liberal: 12
Conservative: 11
Maori: 7
Ecoist: 5
Governing Coalition: Liberal-Ecoist
Found the EU4 player.Who do they think they are? Ulm?
(Though to be honest, the Venn diagram of AH.commers and Paradox fans is probably a circle.)
EU3, my good sir. There's nothing that quite says crazy as having all of Europe as vassals while an OPM.
It is indeed. It's origins date back to a comment by German astronaut Helmfried Lafrentz who in 1976 described walking on the moon as "One has the acute sense of being a foreigner in a strange land." So its a bit of an inside joke by the IRLK.