Alternate North American History

[Plankowner]

Several others have offered up their versions of how the various countries came through WW3 and survived until 2300.

Here is my alternate North American History. I used this back in the mid 80s and haven't really updated it much, so it might be a bit niave..

At the end of WW3 the US is split into rival factions as stated, but so it Canada.

Quebec quickly seizes the opportunity to declare it's independence and with the help of France claims all of Canada to the east. That border stays relatively stable into 2300. Quebec eventually joins as a Deparment of France.

The US is split and during the early parts of the 21st Century Utah and nearby Mormon enclaves declare their independence and establish a Mormon state (called Deserte). Their territory is all of Utah as well as small parts of surrounding states that have Mormon majorities. The Mormon custom of having large quantities of supplies on hand (usually one year) allow them to weather the hard times fairly well. (1)

As Mexico moves north to "reclaim" former territory, they are stopped cold at the Rio Grande by Texas. This forces the Mexicans farther west and they are able to take New Mexico and Arizona. Texas eventually forms its own country, but includes all of Oklahoma and a small part of southwestern Kansas. (2)

As Mexico starts to move into southern California, the remains of the National Guard of California, Oregon and Washington, supplemented by US forces from Fort Lewis and Ft. Scott in Washington AND a contingent of Canadian troops from British Columbia successfully defeat the Mexicans and establish a firm border in the "Battle of Big Sir".

This combination of state and Canadian forces west of the Rockies leads this region to form an alliance and eventually a new country, called Pacifica. Pacifica includes Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, Vancouver Island, Washington, Oregon, California (north of Big Sir), Nevada and Idaho. Pacifica is able to stabilize much sooner than the rest of the US and eventually a long term border is established roughly coinciding with the Continental Divide. Minor skirmishes with Deserte establish a border along the Snake River in southern Idaho.

The CivGov and MilGov parts of the US finally come together and defeat New America, but by this time they have lost everything west of the Rockies as well as Oklahoma and Texas. They compensate by merging with the rest of Canada not mentioned above.

Pacifica throws it's fortunes in with Manchuria and is able to move to the stars. Pacifica is also the most Green of nations, pioneering solar power and recycling and all that tree-hugger stuff.

COLONIES:
Pacifica gets all colonies listed for Canada.

Texas gets to keep the Texas colonies.

Quebequois can be found on any French colony.

Deserte never got off world and never really wanted to.

SO:
The northern Mexican border runs from Big Sir directly east through California, dips down a bit to avoid Nevada, then moves north again to take all of Arizone and New Mexico south of the Red River line. Deserte has all territory east of Nevada and north of the Red River to Texas.

Texas consists of the current state lines of Texas and Oklahoma and the 5 counties in the SW corner of Kansas.

NOTES:
(1) I lived in eastern Idaho for several years (Idaho Falls) and many Mormon families had 1 years supply of food in their houses. Also, I was later influenced by Harry Turtledove's alternate American History and they just reinforced my idea of an independend Mormon state.

(2) In the late 1990s, the five counties in SW Kansas actually had a vote to secede from Kansas and form their own state. I added them to Texas just because they wouldn't want to stay with the US if they could get away with it. Oklahoma joined Texas because IMNSHO most Okies look South rather than North for inspiration anyway.

RESULTS:
The US is even more broken up in my version than in the "real" history, but still strong enough to join with Australia and be a major space power.

Canada is gone completely, but those are the breaks.

I felt that an independent Mormon state and an independent Quebec made a lot more sense than the official version. I left Texas independent because "It's like a whole 'nother country" worked for me and I let them be that way. Having worked in Texas a lot, the idea of an independent Texas is not that far fetched if the US government were to collapse. There is a VERY strong Texas identity that would come through I think.

 

[Colin]

I don't have many quibbles with this idea, though I suspect that Alaska and the Pacific Northwest don't really have much in common. Quebec I can see going it's own way, but I don't see the Maritimes going along with them. They've always been pro-Confederation, or at the very least anti-Quebec. Perhaps Labrador, given that Quebec has always claimed that territory, or the Francophone parts of New Brunswick. I don't see the rump of Canada joining with the States, though, Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan in particular. Alberta, maybe.

 

[epicenter00]

A few quibbles - first with spelling -- I believe it's spelled "Deseret" and "Big Sur" respectively.

Besides that, I find the idea of an independent Quebec swallowing up the eastern provinces a little fishy. Who knows it might happen, though. Quebec has traditionally been one of the wealthiest Canadian provinces, so perhaps though they don't like it, they're sort of "bought up" by Quebec that recovers much faster than the rest of Canada due to French aid.

IIRC (Colin might know more about this) there's some party in western Canada that talks about leaving Canada and joining the United States. I've always figured they're sort of a "tinfoil hat" party in Canada (ie; one that nobody really takes seriously, even the people voting for them - I've always figured they just vote it to show their displeasure with Ottowa's policies), but I guess it you could fan that sentiment into pro-union sentiments - I suppose I could see BC and Alberta joining a new "west coast" oriented nation in North America. I've talked to a few people from that region and they get annoyed at Canada's "East Coast-centric" attitude as I as a Californian feel about the United States' "East Coast-centric" attitudes, though in either case, that's more annoyance and not a desire to secede. After all, I have enemies closer to home, like those lawn-watering Southern Californians in the middle of a desert...

As for the creation of new nations, I've always figured that post Twilight War, a wealth of new nations pop up as bunch of them decide, "Hey, we can be our own country!" but I think for independence to last, they tend to have to have some resentment of the country they were a part of before. I could easily imagine Pacifica and Deseret (and Texas) being separate nations for a while, then gradually brought back into the fold of their respective nations, not by conquest, but simply by the rediscovery of mutual self-interest through expanding markets and various revivalist political parties. I've always figured that places like Texas and west coast of the United States are reunited on the US's tricentennial in a big celebration.

As for the invasion of the United States by Mexico ... I've always found that scenario to be particularly fishy. GDW was certainly "reaching" to create a different world in that case, I think. Certainly Mexico might want to invade to protect its nationals (and former nationals) who'd no doubt be brutalized in a post nuclear war scenario by people who channel their fears into racist sentiments (perhaps with a thin veneer of nationalist sentiment to make it more palatable to themselves), but honestly, in the Twilight War scenario, Mexico would have disintegrated as fast or faster than the United States. I'm also wondering how your Canadians get down to California to fight off the Mexicans - oil is supposed to be pretty scarce, and military vehicles don't run well at all on alcohol due to that low gas milage thing. It seems like Canada would have bigger concerns (like feeding their people - getting food from the farms in Western Canada to the cities) than splurging on sending some expedition down to California.


In any case, I don't really think you need an invasion by Mexico to create Pacifica - just cut the Western States off from the East Coast for a while and I think things would settle out just fine. Alaska is a little questionable for me, while I'm sure they're really closer to Russia than the rest of Pacifica, with their low population density and large percentage of immigrants and most of all ... oil ... they'd be sort of co-opted into Pacifica.

 

[jcrocker]

Besides that, I find the idea of an independent Quebec swallowing up the eastern provinces a little fishy. Who knows it might happen, though. Quebec has traditionally been one of the wealthiest Canadian provinces...

Not really. They receive 'transfer payments' from Ottawa, just like everyone else except Alberta, Ontario when the US isn't in recession, and BC back in the 90s.

so perhaps though they don't like it, they're sort of "bought up" by Quebec that recovers much faster than the rest of Canada due to French aid.

With the given situation, I don't find French aid that likely.

IIRC (Colin might know more about this) there's some party in western Canada that talks about leaving Canada

There's always a level of 'western alienation'...

and joining the United States.

...that usually stops before it gets this far. In my experience there are a few people that would love to see their bit of Canada join the US, but they usually get their papers in order, pick up, and move there. Some move back, but that's a different topic.

I suppose I could see BC and Alberta joining a new "west coast" oriented nation in North America. I've talked to a few people from that region and they get annoyed at Canada's "East Coast-centric" attitude as I as a Californian feel about the United States' "East Coast-centric" attitudes, though in either case, that's more annoyance and not a desire to secede. After all, I have enemies closer to home, like those lawn-watering Southern Californians in the middle of a desert...

The whole timeline is full of unlikely scenarios, as far as I'm concerned, and I've got my own take on things - if Pacifica works for you, great, but I'm not that convinced.

As for the invasion of the United States by Mexico ... I've always found that scenario to be particularly fishy. GDW was certainly "reaching" to create a different world in that case, I think.

And in the case of the near-total destruction of the Nato Atlantic fleet, the case of New America being a viable 'third nation' to suck the life out of CivGov and MilGov, the case of the Nato drive to the east that punches into the Soviet Union and gets rolled back, the case of...

GDW had an endgame they wanted the timeline to reach so the players could have all the benefits of military membership in a post-apocalyptic world and not many of the headaches, like chain of command and following orders. I don't believe half of it, but it's fun to work with, and it works very well for Twilight game. It makes the background of 2300 a little odd in places, but hey, we still have fun arguing about it twenty years later, they must have done something right.

I'm also wondering how your Canadians get down to California to fight off the Mexicans - oil is supposed to be pretty scarce, and military vehicles don't run well at all on alcohol due to that low gas milage thing. It seems like Canada would have bigger concerns (like feeding their people - getting food from the farms in Western Canada to the cities) than splurging on sending some expedition down to California.

There is that...

In any case, I don't really think you need an invasion by Mexico to create Pacifica - just cut the Western States off from the East Coast for a while and I think things would settle out just fine. Alaska is a little questionable for me, while I'm sure they're really closer to Russia than the rest of Pacifica, with their low population density and large percentage of immigrants and most of all ... oil ... they'd be sort of co-opted into Pacifica.

They might want help dealing with Soviet marauders, too.

 

[rfmcdpei]

Not really. They receive 'transfer payments' from Ottawa, just like everyone else except Alberta, Ontario when the US isn't in recession, and BC back in the 90s.

It's half and half. Québec the province receives more funds than any other province but that's because it's large--per capita, Québec receives much less. There is a wealth differential--Québec's GDP per capita is 95% of the Canadian average versus 110% or so for Ontario--but it has been fairly stable.

 

[rfmcdpei]

I don't have many quibbles with this idea, though I suspect that Alaska and the Pacific Northwest don't really have much in common. Quebec I can see going it's own way, but I don't see the Maritimes going along with them. They've always been pro-Confederation, or at the very least anti-Quebec. Perhaps Labrador, given that Quebec has always claimed that territory, or the Francophone parts of New Brunswick. I don't see the rump of Canada joining with the States, though, Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan in particular. Alberta, maybe.

I took a look at the targeting list for the Twilight War, and the Anglophone areas of New Brunswick seem to do rather worse than the rest of the province.

As for the rest of the Maritimes and Newfoundland ... If the rest of North America is a howling wilderness, and if they are surrounded by France and Québec, some sort of deal might be possible. I suspect it would be uneasy, but a partnership with a functioning France wouldn't be all that bad.

 

[Plankowner]

As I said, most of this was thought up after reading the original 2300 book, without any supplements.

I figure that the east coast of canada had 2 options. Starve or join Quebec. They joined, they may not have been happy about it, but food trumps just about anything at that time. Later, they learn to live with it. It was more of Quebec expanding to ensure that it had coastal access rather than other provinces saying "heh! can we play too?"

Deseret and Big Sur - You are correct. Keyboarding is a secondary skill for me...

I wanted a Pacifica, so I tried to figure out how to make it happen. There were lots of small groups in the PNW in the 80s that didn't like a lot of what was going on in DC and on the Right Coast. I kept the Mexican invasion from the original time line, but it probably wasn't necessary. I was actually camping in Big Sur when I came up with the idea of a huge battle there between National Guard units of the western states and Mexico. It felt right, so I used it.

The Mormons, once they got their independence would probably not want to give it back up. They still consider themselves (a lot of them do anyway) as being religiously persecuted by the US government. Freedom of Religion doesn't always apply to the Mormons (in the opinion of several groups that I met in the early 80s) that was the reasoning for in independent Mormon state.

Texas might eventually join back into the US, I hadn't really thought of that. After a hundred years though, I could see that going either way.

Regarding Canadian troops in the Battle of Big Sur, I figure it was more of a token force, but showed that BC was willing to help and that helped jell everyone together. The troops could have been mobilized with the US forces from Fort Lewis and Fort Scott south of Seattle, so separate supplies may not have been needed for the entire trip.

 

[epicenter00]

While it's true that a lot of Mormons feel persecuted by the United States (I know quite a few Mormons as well IRL), I've always felt that the United States that rises out of ashes of WW3 is a different kind of beast than the United States that exists today. 2300's US would be superficially similar, but different at some fundamental levels and that Deseret would have rejoined the United States. I believe this because of New America.

It's been my RL observation that the white supremacy of New America would be quite palatable to a large percentage of Americans today who wouldn't describe themselves (and don't think of themselves) as racists or white supremacists - NA would be codifying into laws attitudes that already exist in the United States behind closed doors (or at barbecues and family get-togethers when people start talking about politics). Add to the fact that NA would have plenty of supplies and would be open-handed in giving them out at a time when Federal and local governments were in no shape to help people (especially those who qualify as "white" by NA's standards, which are pretty loose - some shades of "Europa, Europa" going on here) and you have the recipe for what I think would be a broad-based and surprisingly deep support for New America in the areas they control.

When 2300 first came out, like many players I was dismayed at how long NA persists to be a problem for CivGov and MilGov, and while I still think the split between CivGov and MilGov going on for as long as it did was idiotic, I now believe that NA being a thorn in the side of the United States for as long as it did is perfectly reasonable. However, New America doesn't exist as an independent entity in 2300 and that the United States avoids calling a colony "New America" shows that NA was not assimilated peacefully into the reunifying United States, and that the war was probably long and drawn-out and bitter - and perhaps there are still parts of the US where New American sentiment persists (it's not unbelievable at all - there are people in Kampuchea who still support the Khmer Rogue after all their idiocy to their own people).

I think that New America would have led to a lot of soul-searching by those loyal to the United States, but moreso that the restored United States would have probably had to make a lot of alliances with groups that "Americans" have traditionally spurned - Native Americans, Mormons, and so on - people who had little to gain from allying with NA and a lot to lose. At first, such alliances were probably based on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" but in time concessions would be made and the coalitions made more concrete to prevent defection (I've imagined NA vs the US to be a civil war - lots of families split in loyalty, brothers and sisters fighting each other, etc.) and the American "family" that emerged would be a lot more pluralistic than what exists today in the US - it'd have to be that strong or else the US would have succumbed to New America.

---

Adding in facetiously:

It's not well-known, but there are some entries you can mark down for the Pros of having Mexico conquer the Southwest, especially Los Angeles:

Pros:

* "When the flow of water from the Peripheral Canal stops, all eyes shall turn to Northern California, for he who controls the water, controls the universe..."

* Take Las Vegas, please.

Cons:

* We're still stuck with Reno and you thought Las Vegas was a cyst in the desert.

 

[aramis]

Yes, lots of persecution likely to reassert... far less "anti-black" and far more anti-latino and anti-asian...

Mostly because, for the most part, blacks assimilate when not the majority. (So do many natives.) But, as a rule, hispanics tend to remain cultural enclaves for several more generations than other immigrants, and do not attempt to assimilate/inculturate. In fact, many hispanic communities dragged the Black Man to equality by wielding laws intended to protect Blacks as a weapon to allow them to remain non-assimilated.

Asians, as a rule, try to assimilate, and do assimilate, but the first several generations may maintain "dual cultures"... acting assimilated in public, but retaining foreign customs at home.

Mormons, Catholics, and Orthodox are also likely targets in the US, where 1 in 5 is Catholic, 1 in 20 is Mormon, and 1 in 50 is Orthodox or Eastern Catholic; all three have some degree of isolationism and obvious distinctive practices. Also, at the moment, they are three of the top 5 groups to have population growth. (Mainstream protestantism is holding its own, but is continuing to fragment so the individual groups/denoms are not growing much, but there are more and more such groups...)

So WIth Deseret having been separated, one can easily see religious persecution as well. And, once the Mormons get zapped, the Catholics and Orthodox (who are seen by many protestants as being almost as weird as Mormons) are quite likely next...

I can see cantonments of Catholics... given the current trends in protestants in the US, a lot of protestants will see the twilight war and resultant collapse as being a test by God... and others will rise because of it and blame secularism...