The Union Forever: A TL

[jeckl]

I like No 1 the best.

A quick question about India, will we get a Canada like country or will the British lose it all?

[Mac Gregor]

Originally Posted by jeckl

A quick question about India, will we get a Canada like country or will the British lose it all?

Good Question. I am undecided. What do y'all think?

[IchBinDieKaiser]

I like #2 and #4, with 4>2.

[FleetMac]

Originally Posted by Mac Gregor

Good Question. I am undecided. What do y'all think?

I don't think Canada itself will stay that much in the Commonwealth camp, they're too close to the US and ITTL the Free Americas/OAS is a much, much tighter organization. I'm not saying they'd straight up leave per se, but that they'd look more southward than east in terms of international policy (maybe staying tied to Britain for sentimental reasons, and not much else).

Besides, I got the impression that good feelings between the UK and Canada (and Ireland, by the way) would deteriorate pretty quickly as a result of the Brittany Debacle. I would use the hint dropped in the "Where Are They Now" portion of the original thread, and have the Commonwealth consist largely of Hong Kong, Singapore, Gibraltar, the Falklands, British Honduras, Jamaica, Guiana, and Cyprus; Canada, Australia and New Zealand may not necessarily walk away from the Home Country, but I wouldn't say they'd be as tight as IOTL either (how Britannia conducts herself in the Indian Civil War might play a role here).

EDIT: Argh, reading comprehension are not my friend
In response to the question, I think parts of what was British India might remain part of the Commonwealth, but the bulk IMHO will fight for independence. A couple spots that could remain loyal are Bangladesh, Ceylon/Sri Lanka, and maybe the Tamil region at most.

[Ares96]

Originally Posted by Mac Gregor

Good Question. I am undecided. What do y'all think?

I think some parts (Madras and Bengal, probably, since those are Britain's oldest assets in India) should remain British-held throughout the war (and eventually becoming Dominions like Canada), with other areas (Baluchistan, Kashmir, Hyderabad, etc.) declaring themselves independent altogether, but with the Hindi- and Punjabi-speaking core becoming a "Republic of Bharat" in firm rebel hands and with an anti-British stance.

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by jeckl

I like No 1 the best.

A quick question about India, will we get a Canada like country or will the British lose it all?

Honestly, a situation like OTL's Canada could work pretty well, given the right administration.

I'd also like to throw out a third option if no one minds: the possibility of perhaps making India a kingdom, as was done with Ceylon and Australia in DoD.
Perhaps it may be a tad. little farfetched, this being India and all, but it might work out. I'd like to suggest asking Jared for help if you'd like to consider going down this road, I think he'd be glad to assist you.

[Van555]

number 4 is the best

[jeckl]

Originally Posted by Ares96

I think some parts (Madras and Bengal, probably, since those are Britain's oldest assets in India) should remain British-held throughout the war (and eventually becoming Dominions like Canada),

I was thinking something similar, would the other 'Indian States' consider them traitors or occupied people, I wonder,

[Mac Gregor]

Hey everyone, here is the first in our series on electoral maps for the TL. Courtesy Ares96 thanks for the support. Cheers!

[FleetMac]

Very nice map; I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that even the "reconciliated" South voted against Lincoln by this point. Also, nice touches with the redesigned state/territory borders.

[jlckansas]

Originally Posted by Ares96

I think some parts (Madras and Bengal, probably, since those are Britain's oldest assets in India) should remain British-held throughout the war (and eventually becoming Dominions like Canada), with other areas (Baluchistan, Kashmir, Hyderabad, etc.) declaring themselves independent altogether, but with the Hindi- and Punjabi-speaking core becoming a "Republic of Bharat" in firm rebel hands and with an anti-British stance.

You would have the Princely states maybe banding together on one side or the other. The other parts would depend on which way the people in charge of the area, or have the most influence, would want to go. IIRC one of the things during the run up to Indian independence in our time was the fact that up until the last minute some of the Princely states did not want to be a part of a larger India and just keep there own little country. Some of these states were allowed a small army in our timeline and this would impact how they go also.

[Ares96]

Originally Posted by jlckansas

You would have the Princely states maybe banding together on one side or the other. The other parts would depend on which way the people in charge of the area, or have the most influence, would want to go. IIRC one of the things during the run up to Indian independence in our time was the fact that up until the last minute some of the Princely states did not want to be a part of a larger India and just keep there own little country. Some of these states were allowed a small army in our timeline and this would impact how they go also.

That's what I meant by "other areas" gaining independence. Kashmir is, perhaps, the most famous example from OTL, but Hyderabad also tried to hold its own (for some reason, they wanted to form a new country called, of all things, "Osmanistan"), which led to the Indian invasion of that state, codenamed Operation Polo.

[JJohnson]

Originally Posted by Mac Gregor

Here is a map of the U.S. before the POD. This really leaves a lot of room to draw the borders differently. Does any body now why Arizona and New Mexico were split like they were in OTL?

New Mexico's east/west borders are there because they're 3° east/west of Santa Fe, and that would make Arizona roughly the same size as New Mexico. Wyoming has its straight-edge border to make it 7° wide, like ND, SD, WA, CO, and OR are. Idaho got the edge of the Bitterroot Mountains instead of the continental divide due to Sidney Edgerton, who knew Lincoln personally, apparently. He was appointed to represent those in what became Montana in defining their borders, in 1864, Montana got the border pushed to the Bitterroot Mountains. Is this changed in this timeline?

[JJohnson]

Originally Posted by Mac Gregor

Hey everybody, based off of a discussion with Ares96, I have been thinking about a possible retcon of some state borders in the TL. Basically, it is poor AH writing to have a North and South Dakota the exact same as OTL. Also after a little research it looks like it is also unlikely (although certainly not impossible) that Wyoming and Montana would keep their names as well.

I am trying to split OTL North and South Dakotas along the Missouri River. While the TTL version's of Montana and Wyoming would have different borders as well. Does anybody have any suggestions for what to name these states? I think the state next to Minnesota would simply be called Dakota.

I would love to here y'all's thoughts.

Cheers!.

The following is a rough sketch I made or some possible border changes. (original map courtesy Ares96)

In the era when Arizona's a territory and Nevada's already a state, it would make sense for Nevada to gain the leftward angle of Arizona so Nevada can have waterway access. Before cars, water access was vitally important in this era, so a state would have much more sway to gain that bit of land than a territory.

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by JJohnson

New Mexico's east/west borders are there because they're 3° east/west of Santa Fe, and that would make Arizona roughly the same size as New Mexico. Wyoming has its straight-edge border to make it 7° wide, like ND, SD, WA, CO, and OR are. Idaho got the edge of the Bitterroot Mountains instead of the continental divide due to Sidney Edgerton, who knew Lincoln personally, apparently. He was appointed to represent those in what became Montana in defining their borders, in 1864, Montana got the border pushed to the Bitterroot Mountains. Is this changed in this timeline?

Here is the map with the changed state borders.

Edit: Looks like you already found it.

[Mac Gregor]

Originally Posted by JJohnson

New Mexico's east/west borders are there because they're 3° east/west of Santa Fe, and that would make Arizona roughly the same size as New Mexico. Wyoming has its straight-edge border to make it 7° wide, like ND, SD, WA, CO, and OR are. Idaho got the edge of the Bitterroot Mountains instead of the continental divide due to Sidney Edgerton, who knew Lincoln personally, apparently. He was appointed to represent those in what became Montana in defining their borders, in 1864, Montana got the border pushed to the Bitterroot Mountains. Is this changed in this timeline?

Originally Posted by JJohnson

In the era when Arizona's a territory and Nevada's already a state, it would make sense for Nevada to gain the leftward angle of Arizona so Nevada can have waterway access. Before cars, water access was vitally important in this era, so a state would have much more sway to gain that bit of land than a territory.

Yes, due to butterflies Sidney Edgerton is not appointed to represent Montana so Jefferson (OTL Idaho) keeps its continetal divide border. As far as Nevada getting Arizona's north west corner succesful lobbying by the territorial governor allows Arizona to keep it.

[Mac Gregor]

Hey everyone, something that has always bugged my about this TL is its use of the Durand line for the border between Afghanistan and British India. Having been drawn in 1893 it would no doubt be different in the TL. Does anybody have a realistic proposal for where the border should be? This will have important consequences for the division of postwar India. Thanks for the help.

[metastasis_d]

What about the Indus? Keeps the Pashtuns for the most part in the same country.

[Ares96]

Originally Posted by metastasis_d

What about the Indus? Keeps the Pashtuns for the most part in the same country.

The Indus? That would leave Baluchistan within Afghanistan, which is very odd, and besides, the British already had considerable investments to the west of the river.

[Mac Gregor]

Originally Posted by metastasis_d

What about the Indus? Keeps the Pashtuns for the most part in the same country.

Originally Posted by Ares96

The Indus? That would leave Baluchistan within Afghanistan, which is very odd, and besides, the British already had considerable investments to the west of the river.

How about Afghanistan regains the Pashtun parts of OTL's Federally Admistered Tribal Areas and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formally North West Frontier Province)? The Afghans have traditional claims on these regions going back to the Durrani Empire of the 1700's. This would probably lead to a much stronger and more stable Afghan state. Britian would still have Balochistan, Sindh, and Kashmir and Jumma.