|
LP97S posted:Also, I don't know if horribly jingoistic video games are appropriate for this thread. I like how the Korean empire respects the Canadian and Mexican borders despite it being both out of character and phenomenally dumb from a military standpoint.
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:I think its far more likely that America would absorb Canada than it breaking up anytime soonish. There's a ton of resistance to even the very notion of Canada joining the US among Canadians even though nobody seems to know exactly why.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
univbee posted:I like how Germany takes over Newfoundland and Labrador and pretty much decides that's good enough. I'm not sure whether to feel relieved or insulted as a Canadian that the big bads always seem to ignore us even to such a degree that they'd be strategically compromised. I like how the Japanese Empire leaves a US friendly state on its border for no apparent reason.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
I used to find the whole "X invades America" subgenre of historical fiction to be fascinating until I learned more about strategy and realized how unless the defenders have basically no army at all it's virtually impossible to invade the North American continent. I would much rather get involved in a land war in Asia than a land war in North America. It's also cute that apparently the midwest joins Canada yet for some reason it's a republic. (Republicanism has never been popular in Canada.) Also, Halifax was probably a more important strategic target for the Nazis than most American cities aside from maybe New York and Washington on account of it being the primary port for the supply line keeping Britain fed. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Mar 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Eh, it's virtually impossible to invade any continental sized entity over the Atlantic or the Pacific. Normandy being exception due to ever-handy Airstrip One (and the fact that thanks to Soviet Union most of the army was occupied elsewhere). And the fact that British intelligence was playing the Germans like a fiddle pretty much from day one. When D-Day arrived they were so effective at fooling German intelligence that Hitler kept the bulk his forces at Pas-de-Calais because he was so utterly convinced the real invasion would come there that he thought Normandy was a feint. That said, invading Europe before the creation of NATO was a lot easier because Europe has so many borders and separate states. We saw that Hitler was able to take over a sizable portion of Europe before people declared war on him by taking a little bit at a time. It doesn't matter where you land in North America. The entire continent only has three main powers on it (Canada, Mexico, United States) and each of them would consider an invasion of any of the others to be the same as an invasion of themselves. (Well, Mexico is a wildcard but also the lesser factor of the three.) So unless you have a navy big enough to cover the entire coast at the same time, you'll get pretty much instantly flanked by the defending navies. None of the plans pictured there could've worked. Plan one has the Germans invading the American south and northeast but they can't cover either the Gulf of Mexico or the North Atlantic, allowing themselves to be encircled if Allied ships used New Orleans or Nova Scotia as ports. The Japanese would apparently fight a land war through Alaska, the Yukon, and British Columbia until they reached Washington. When you consider that the terrain they'd be fighting across is a mix of tundra, untamed wilderness, and mountains and they'd be fighting an impossible battle against heavily entrenched defenders. They'd have no chance unless they captured Vancouver or some other major port and the plan proposes they do it by land. The other plans actually compound these problems by concentrating the invading fleets and having them all attack one target, leaving their soft, supple behinds completely exposed to the massive cock of the defending fleets.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Yeah, people tend to forget that Chicago is a major world city. It's one of the most populous metro areas in the world and an extremely important financial center. Honestly if you're going to split up North America by population centers future borders would be centered around this:  The Great Lakes megalopolis would be the most powerful region. It'd help if that map showed us if Canada was split as well. I could see maybe SOME power projection from the Golden Horseshoe in Southern Ontario but not enough to take over the entire midwest.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
Why is there a small slip of land across the lake that brings Toronto into Israeli America?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
I don't even think that they'd care if you're Canadian. If you're white then you're American. This is the perspective of many people throughout the far-east, not just the North Koreans.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Kingsbury3 posted:I made a new Europe. The new flag of the Canadian Empire, circa 2030.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:I used to get mad about 'unrealistic' alternate history, then I took a look at actual history and realized anyone from another timeline is going to think our world is nothing except stupid unrealistic Anglowank. I mean, some tiny, rainswept island nobody ever gave two shits about manages to forge the largest empire in history? One of its colonies successfully rebels (but not one that has been invaded and is filled with oppressed natives, this colony's just a bunch of British people and the natives are pretty much all gone) against this massive empire, and then that colony goes on to become even stronger and they roar across their entire continent sweeping absolutely everyone aside. Texas winning their independence? America just managing to pull off some stupidly huge amphibious landing and get to Mexico City? Sure, they mention "yellow fever" but they totally underplay its effects and act like it wouldn't cripple the US Army into uselessness. To say nothing of World War II and Britian's continually magical super navy that destroys all threats forever, except when God does it by just straight-up sinking the Spanish Armada. Can you believe how huge a Marty Stu Churchill is? Just as the Germans are about to win Hitler magically turns dumb and just stops attacking England. Can't let anything happen to the Author's Pet after all!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
prefect posted:It's impossible to believe that two European military powerhouses would both make the same idiotic mistake of trying to invade Russia. Hell, the second one was actually allied with them at first, and then betrayed them just so they could lose. And then to top it off the Americans just happen to win a war across two oceans thanks to their stupid plot-device superweapon that came out of nowhere and then proceed to come out of it more powerful than ever? For gently caress's sake, who's writing this poo poo?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:People they met died pretty soon anyway Well, actually they were driven off by the natives. Most likely the Beothuk, which as someone earlier in the thread pointed out apparently didn't play well with others even in the best of times. The Vikings picked one of the worst parts of North America to land in as far as hostile native presences are concerned and after a few months from the looks of it they decided it wasn't worth it and packed up. That being said it's starting to look like Newfoundland might not have been the only place the Vikings set up an outpost. It's looking like they might have had more settlements in the Canadian arctic. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/11/vikings-and-indians/pringle-text http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121019-viking-outpost-second-new-canada-science-sutherland/ Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Jul 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 12:58
|
|
|
You'd also presumably need the co-operation of the Chinese government, which they would be disinclined to give as they have been selling their own state-sanctioned version of Chinese history that actual historical documents would likely reveal to be complete bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
The Chinese name for Canada is literally "Village?"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Skeleton Jelly posted:Which makes sense, as "village" is what Canada literally means anyways. It's an Iroquois term. Yeah, I know. I wanted to confirm if the Chinese map said that because I can't read Chinese letters.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Why is North American internet usage so inconsistent?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Why is Sal of the Erie Canal in Canada?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
That's astonishingly accurate compared to the Chinese maps.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
I suspect that as per usual the south is skewing the American statistics so that they look closer to third world countries.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas. Seems about right.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
Starks posted:There's still plenty of racism but even in the more racially charged countries like the US or Brazil or Bolivia, you don't see "Nationalist" parties getting representation the way they do in Europe (insert joke about republicans). One of the core tenets of fascism is that a nation is bound by racial or ethnic bonds stretching back centuries or millennia. It's very much an "Old World" thing because the oldest states in the Americas are only a couple hundred years old and most of them only came into being because of a large number of old world migrants. Funnily enough the groups in Americas that were most inclined towards fascism back when it wasn't immediately synonomous with evil were native american groups such as the American Indian Federation, what with aboriginal groups having national histories going back thousands of years. Basically, being young nations largely composed of a hodgepodge of immigrants from all over the Old World makes the New World less disposed towards renegade nationalism. At least that's what I think.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Yeah, that map definitely seems off. Isn't the paper it's associated with actually something along the lines of "The world according to Osama Bin Laden?" That still makes lumping Canada and the UK in with the Middle East really weird and hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
I'd wager Canada has more international clout than pretty much all the African nations who are the same color on that map.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
quote:I mentioned that Canada is insignificant in political terms, because this is about them appearing in media. If Canada appears in any international media, they rarely get a say in important political matters. However, when it's about economical news, they get mentioned all the time for ruining and exploiting so many countries. Er, hold on. When I think "countries that have exploited others" Canada and Norway aren't really high on the list. I'm Canadian myself and I am completely unaware of any sort of disdain for Canada economically in the international media. Second, if that's what it's measuring then it doesn't make sense for the great powers such as the US, China, and Russia to be grouped the way that they are. When I think China I don't really think "positive reputation" or "positive links with its neighbours." I don't think the map is measuring what either of us think it is.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
What's Norway's reason for being so negatively viewed then?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:The 2011 terrorist attacks produced a lot of articles with very negative language. If true, that really hurts the map as an analysis of anything but the most superficial.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
It makes very little sense regardless. Pretty much ever major urban area stays part of Canada while the rural conservative parts split off. It really isn't much different from rural Americans thinking they don't need fancy government or city folk, they're just fine by themselves and can get everything they need independently. Of course, the catch here is that people who live in Montreal or Quebec City are never going to vote in favor of secession, making Quebec separatism a far deader issue than most foreigners realize.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Not enough voted in favor of secession, and the number that would has shrunk ever since. I find it hard to believe that anyone but the most hard-line conservative Quebecois would vote purely based on language without considering other factors such as for example, the fact that Montreal and Quebec in general has stagnated horribly since the referendum because business fled the province for Ontario. And that was a failed referendum.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I didn't know you were Russian, because it sure as poo poo wasn't the Americans the reason WWII was won. The Red Army wasn't fed and equipped by Russia.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I think canada won wwii. Canada fed and trained the British during the Battle of Britain and was responsible for defending half the North Atlantic from the Germans.  Also we got a beach on D-Day and liberated the Low Countries.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yes it was. The Soviets certainly had help, perhaps most importantly in the form of trucks for logistics stuff, but that was only a small part of Soviet production. For some rough but easily source-able numbers, Lend lease from the US shipped some 12,000 armored vehicles to the Soviet Union over the course of the war, including 7000 tanks1. The Soviets built more T-34s than that every year after 19412. Similarly, Lend Lease supplied ~11,000 aircraft to the Soviet Union1, which was exceeded every year between '41 and '453. That disregards the British contribution, but that was much smaller than Lend-Lease was. And for some reason I can't find any numbers around agricultural output in the Soviet Union, but I'd be amazed if Allied supply efforts made up a significant portion of it. Fair enough, but I think it's also grossly incorrect to say that the Soviets won WWII as if they soloed the Axis powers. Not only is that ignoring allied aid to the Soviet Union but it's also ignoring that it was only half the war; the other major Axis combatant (Japan) was subdued almost entirely by the US.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
Brown Blitzkrieg posted:Japan only surrendered because they knew the Soviets were coming for them. The nukes had pretty much nothing to do with it (and in comparison to the death rates from firebombings of civilians in Japanese cities before them, were a snowflake in a blizzard). If it had not been for the Soviets routing them out of China and beating Germany, allowing them to turn their attention back to their East, the Japanese would have kept fighting. That's not entirely correct. The Japanese had already been defeated by the Americans long before the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, and in fact the Japanese had been begging the Soviets to act as a mediator for a conditional Japanese surrender. While they may have kept on fighting had the Soviet Union not declared war, there was absolutely no chance of the Japanese reversing any gains that the Americans had made. The Soviets didn't really rout them out of China either; the Japanese had largely withdrawn from most of their holdings in China and Southeast Asia by the end of the war in anticipation of an Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands. Manchuria was the only place that held any significant Japanese presence outside of Japan from what I have heard. As for what prompted the Japanese surrender, that is still subject to controversy. The Soviets declared war only three days after Hiroshima was bombed and only seven hours before Nagasaki was bombed; they happened roughly concurrently and the Japanese response to the Atomic bombings was still confused at the time. The truth is that even after both bombs had been dropped AND the Soviet declaration of war, the Japanese leadership was still seeking a conditional surrender. (Specifically, they wanted to handle their own war criminals and disarmament, and wanted the Emperor to retain power) It was a combination of both events that caused the Japanese to surrender; the Soviet declaration of war made it clear they couldn't get a conditional surrender and the atomic bombs showed that if they didn't accept the Potsdam terms then their country would be quite literally obliterated. The atomic bombs also did something that the Soviet declaration of war didn't, and that was break the psychological will to fight of the Japanese so hard that they turned from a nation with a thousand year history of belligerence and aggression into a nation of pacifists. Brown Blitzkrieg posted:I guess what I'm saying is yes, Japan got stomped by America, but they could easily have been stomped by the USSR and also that under the Soviets, their war criminals and socio-political elites would have been executed for their crimes and removed, instead of being allowed to continue relatively unpunished and in most cases still in positions of power as per the desires of the US. If the Japanese were at their full strength having not been fighting the Americans for four years and if the Soviets still also had to contend with Germany? The Soviets would have lost the war if they fought full-strength Germany and full-strength Japan at the same time. Yes, the Soviets were very strong but not that strong. Also, tell me more about how great it was to be in territory that was captured by the Soviets in the Second World War. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 09:11
|
|
|
Bensa posted:Most of the Japanese army was intact at the time of the soviet invasion of Manchuria. The American military had mostly been fighting the Japanese navy, outside of some smaller campaigns in the Philippines etc. The fact is that in 11 days the soviets caused half of the losses the Japanese military sustained in the pacific theater. This is what really scared the Japanese leadership, because now it wasn't just the navy faction making GBS threads itself. The Japanese Army was still mostly intact, but most of it had been moved to the Japanese home islands in preparation for an Allied invasion. Nearly a million Japanese soldiers had been transferred to the home islands from China, Korea, and Southeast Asia. To compare, the Imperial Japanese Army had 1.7 million soldiers in 1941. The Soviets were rolling over whatever scraps the Japanese could raise to protect what they still held in Manchuria, most of whom were poorly trained conscripts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 10:05
|
|
|
Brown Blitzkrieg posted:The firebombing of the cities was of a far greater extent and caused much more loss of life and destruction to industry than the atomic bombings ever did, or ever could have (given the difficulty and time it took to construct the devices and enrich the uranium at the time). I don't think those tiny firecrackers, ineffective as they were, were what broke the will of the Japanese people. The fire bombing, on the other hand, is a good contender. The prospect of facing the USSR, who had just dusted off the Germans and whose ranks were full of battle hardened, freshly available , well... They're firecrackers by today's standards. By 1945 standards, they were unbelievably powerful. Yes, the firebombing of Tokyo did more damage in the end and killed more people, but that was over a long period of time during sustained air raids that lasted half a year. Furthermore, air raids are things that involve some sort of direct combat. You can shoot down bombers and kill the pilots dropping the bombs to minimize damage. Atomic bombs on the other hand flattened entire cities with a single bomb and poisoned the remains to give the survivors cancer and die slow, agonizing deaths. There is no way to adequately defend against them and they were, to the Japanese, being rained down on their homeland with impunity (they didn't know that the Americans only had a handful of bombs, also bear in mind the extreme importance that Japanese land itself has in Japanese culture) and showed absolutely no signs of stopping. I agree that the Soviet declaration of war likely had an impact on the Japanese decision to surrender prior to an Allied invasion of Japan in conjunction with the Atomic bombs. But it was the Atomic Bombs that utterly obliterated the Japanese will to fight and broke their warrior-culture. Brown Blitzkrieg posted:Japan is a whole hell of a long way away from the part of the USSR that mattered. The logistics of such a campaign would be a nightmare, open to all manner of vulnerabilities. The USSR probably could have just disrupted the Japanese lines while stopping any major advances, crushed Germany, and then turned their attention to the East. And how do you think the Japanese would have fared in the Russian Winter, exactly? In summation, it would have made reconstruction even more long and painful, but WWII and Axis and Allies are two separate things, mon frere. Oh give me a break. Look, the Soviet Union was very powerful. It played an instrumental role in the Second World War and, with the aid of allied supplies, crushed 80% of the Wehrmacht. But the Red Army was not invincible, the Soviet Union did not solo the Axis powers and if it had found itself in a two-front war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, it would have lost. The Soviets only barely managed to survive Operation Barbarossa (in large part thanks to Hitler being a cocky idiot and Stalin being a paranoid moron) and one of the major reasons they even were able to focus all their efforts Westward was because a spy in Japan had informed Stalin that the Japanese would not invade the Soviet Union, something that the Soviets very rightly feared. A significant amount of Russian resources were in Eastern Russia including food, fuel, and raw materials necessary for a war machine. If they fell into Japanese hands the Soviets would not have been able to fuel the Russian Steamroller and would have been forced to capitulate. Fortunately the Japanese were tied up with the Chinese and Americans.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 10:21
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:It's cool seeing someone discovering that western history is mostly lies and bullshit that differs very little from propaganda. Soon the denial phase will pass. Yeah dude, this certainly couldn't have anything to do with this forum's general fetishization of the Soviet Union and its paradoxical belief that Western civilization is poo poo yet for some reason dominates the planet.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Peruser posted:Why does Western civilization dominate the planet, Fojar? A combination of luck, shrewd diplomacy, and militarism. The main historical reasons I've always pegged down is that Western and Central Europe had an uninterrupted Renaissance which spawned the Enlightenment. Everyone else, when they got to a period of large economic, cultural, and scientific growth ended up having something outside interrupt it. Islamic Golden Age and the Mongols for example.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
Davincie posted:Uhm western mainstream academic history has agreed for quite a while that Russia was the major burden bearer in the fight against the Nazi's. This is not some new thing on these forums. Nor is Western civilization/the western narrative often being poo poo considering how popular books like Orientalism were and still are. I never disputed that the Soviet Union bore most of the burden against the Nazi's. What I'm saying is acting like the Soviets soloed the Axis and were never in any real danger and didn't need any aid is revisionist BS. That's the last I'll say on the matter, this is a thread about maps.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Milk never caught on in the far east for some reason. I've heard that it's because the steppe peoples drank milk and cheese and ate beef and whatnot and so it became synonomous with barbarism in Japan, China, Korea, etc. Could be BS though, I've never really looked into it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Kavak posted:I think the clear answer to this question is American annexation of Canada. And Mexico. And Central America to the Panama Canal. Prettiest, most natural borders you can get without being an island. This was more or less the plan for about 150 years after the American Revolution.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
I found maps of Greater Canada that included Greenland, Alaska, and the northern half of the American midwest.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 00:11
|
|