History Page

Official STARFIRE history based on ULTRA STARFIRE! We are just getting started, so come inside and see the teaser. More on the STARFIRE Stories Page

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

History Page

Postby Cralis on Tue 15 Dec 2009 14:48

The TSU History page is up here.

As mentioned in the news post, there are some obvious additions that will be added later today, and over the next couple of weeks much more will be added to the page.

Comments? Questions?
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: History Page

Postby Cralis on Sat 19 Dec 2009 06:38

The Timeline up to the current story has been posted. If anyone else finds an error between the story and the timeline please let me know. I'm pretty new at writing fiction :-)

PS. Yes, the story on this forum has been modified slightly from the original PDF file.

Comments? Questions? Suggestions?

Thanks!
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: History Page

Postby xzvfstarfire on Sat 19 Dec 2009 19:22

Why is there a North and South Korea? With the Soviet Union destroyed, and the previous war being fought in Europe, Korea and Manchuria would still be parts of Japan. How was the conflict between Japan and China resolved, or did it ever happen? Is it possible the Soviet Union and Japanese disputes along the Manchurian border broke into open war in the late 30's and the USSR occupied Manchuria and Korea? With China obviously growing into a world power, how is Mao handled? He was a far worst dictator than Stalin (at least in his own citizens murdered). Again, it would be interesting to see how a powerful China would have reacted to Japan occupying Formosa (Taiwan). What kept the Japanese/US conflict from happening? With Britain, France and Holland occupied with a war in Europe, their Asian colonies would have been vulnerable, and from your history the United States was involved in Europe at the same time. Did the Japanese join the Allies against the Soviet Union?

History is complex, so don't take this as criticism.
xzvfstarfire
Lieutenant JG
Lieutenant JG
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat 08 Aug 2009 15:15

Re: History Page

Postby xzvfstarfire on Sat 19 Dec 2009 19:38

If I remember right the UN divided French Indochina into four countries after the French lost to independence fighters. Assuming the French were not occupied by, but allied with Germany, why are they not on the Security Council? Even with being occupied they were part of the Security Council and even with the country devastated. They would have easily been one the top five economies in the world after a victorious war with with Soviet Union. If they were, and without Soviet assistance, the colonial issues in Indochina likely would have been resolved differently. It would be interesting to see how a powerful China in the early 50's would have reacted to Indochina. Would Hong Kong and Macao exist?
xzvfstarfire
Lieutenant JG
Lieutenant JG
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat 08 Aug 2009 15:15

Re: History Page

Postby Cralis on Sun 20 Dec 2009 15:45

There is some stuff I wrote in notes that I haven't made "firm" in my mind, so I didn't fully put them down yet. History is complex so I don't have any problems fixing mistakes I know I will make. I appreciate your help. Let me approach these questions one at a time:

First, the change with Manchuria and the surrounding region deals with the fact that the major 'enemy' here is the Soviet Union. During the second world war, the one TSU history is calling the "great war", the Soviet Union attacks Manchuria and Northern China. The assumption was that many of these regional problems would be caused by temporary soviet occupation instead of Japanese occupation. I haven't decided what happened to Japan, but in this history I wanted them to take a much smaller role and not become the economic powerhouse that they are today.

Second, China is a bit different. After the Great War with the Soviet Union, the CPC immediately turned on the KMT. Except this time the allied armies, all geared up smashing dictators and communists, redeploys into China and destroys the CPC and kills Mao. The KMT rebuilds China with western help and influence, and joins the UN Security Council.

Excerpt: As soon as I finish it (my 10-year anniversary was yesterday so you'll have to forgive my disappearing for a day and half) the SNN Special Report will detail many of the "why" questions on how this all came about.

Third, Taiwan. That I'm not sure what to do about. Perhaps this could be solved as a replacement for one of the Sino-Japanese wars? Honestly it won't become anything big because the KMT won't be retreating to it for the US to give money and prop up.

Four, the "Vietnam" issue is actually a combination communist-China problem. When the CPC was smashed by the allies in China, some of the communist leaders and supports fled into Indochina. Instead of merely being against independence fighters, the French were also against pro-communist backers that used their remaining influence and money to finance a more powerful rebellion. The result was similar to reality, except that it occurred in the 50's and 60's and the communists attempted to divide up the territories. The result was an invasion by the UN Security Force. What countries get reformed and stuff I haven't determined, which is why the entry is so short.

Five, I'm not sure what to do with Hong Kong and Macao...not sure it really matters once the EU is formed. Although your right, I'll want to figure this stuff out eventually for the actual fiction. Could have some interesting stuff happen. What suggestions might you have for them?

PS. The French ARE on the Security Council. There are six members - although I'm considering increasing it to 10.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: History Page

Postby xzvfstarfire on Sun 20 Dec 2009 23:47

Hong Kong and Macau being colonial vestiges likely would have reverted to China when most other colonies started to gain independence. All of that depends on how powerful the United States is after the Great War and how much Europe had to rebuild. The US was the primary anti-colonial power evidenced by it's intervention on the Egyptian side during the 1956 Suez crisis against Britain, France and Israel. I don't see Indian history changing significantly, gaining independence in 1949, but if Britain and France weren't significantly weakened economically by the Great War, there is a chance they would have tried to hang on longer than the historical mass independence of African colonies in the 1960's.

Israel might be another sticking point. Without the rise of Hitler, the Holocaust might not have happened (unless the Soviets tried it, but they killed almost anybody), therefore removing the Jewish exodus from Europe that drove the British (who didn't have the finances to stand between Jewish and Arabs in Palestine) to seek UN intervention. Thus forming the state of Israel.

You could solve the Japanese problem by having them react differently when confronted by Perry with steamships and rifles. The US may never have demanded the Japanese open up trade, or they could have turned more isolationist likely being dominated by European states much like China was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I'd be interested to see what happened to the Soviet Union when it reverted to Russia. Without the first World War to create Poland and the Baltic states or break up the Austrian-Hungarian Empire I wonder which states would have been created. The Ukraine would have been likely to try and break off from a significantly weakened Russia. The insanity that happened here may be too much when the real purpose is to get to the Solar Union.
xzvfstarfire
Lieutenant JG
Lieutenant JG
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat 08 Aug 2009 15:15

Re: History Page

Postby Cralis on Mon 21 Dec 2009 03:53

xzvfstarfire wrote:Hong Kong and Macau being colonial vestiges likely would have reverted to China when most other colonies started to gain independence. All of that depends on how powerful the United States is after the Great War and how much Europe had to rebuild. The US was the primary anti-colonial power evidenced by it's intervention on the Egyptian side during the 1956 Suez crisis against Britain, France and Israel. I don't see Indian history changing significantly, gaining independence in 1949, but if Britain and France weren't significantly weakened economically by the Great War, there is a chance they would have tried to hang on longer than the historical mass independence of African colonies in the 1960's.


Since I had kid problems tonight I didn't get the SNN report done, I'll drop a small tidbit that is extremely important to this new history:

The idea of 'responsible democracy', or the ideal today that we call 'social democracy' where responsible people are governed by responsible leaders, is started in the late 1800's. Rather than starting in Europe, it starts in the United States, and becomes a social driving force not just in the United States but outside as well. Traditional democracy is considered anarchy because too many people want too many things and the extremists take over, communism (and centralized socialism) is considered impossible and corrupt, and despots and dictators are considered irresponsible. This story is an "answer" to the question "What happens if human nature changes to focus people on personal and social responsibility rather than personal greed and power?"

The general idea is that after the Democratic War (ww1) the changed governments start to focus on getting their own act together (we are talking about Europe mostly now) and start letting their colonies self-govern: that is the responsible thing to do, and if you've hurt the people (like in India) then rebuild their country as well.I know that this means I'm going to be making small adjustments in the histories all over starting around 1890-1900 but that is fine.

As for their finances, those governments now spend a significant portion of their monies in social programs. The same thing could have happened earlier: early welfare, medical coverage, unemployment, disability, etc. programs cost a significant portion of the budgets of those countries. If those countries changed out of an imperialist government into a social democracy, the changes in budget requirements alone could have slowed and/or removed their economic ability to control colonial territories. Combined with the fact that they'd start seeing self-government as the responsible solution...

Israel might be another sticking point. Without the rise of Hitler, the Holocaust might not have happened (unless the Soviets tried it, but they killed almost anybody), therefore removing the Jewish exodus from Europe that drove the British (who didn't have the finances to stand between Jewish and Arabs in Palestine) to seek UN intervention. Thus forming the state of Israel.


But Stalin could have done a very similar thing, and as you said, did it to everyone anyway. After the war the Jews could have fled Asia for their traditional homeland and you'd still have a very similar sequence of events, especially if Europe - now ruled by social democracies - offered to pay the way for any European or Asian Jew that wanted to return. There is also the idea that the new UN, rather than assist Israel after they seized military control of their homelands, but rather came in and carved their homelands out of the middle eastern mess that existed before. Do you think that is more likely a solution? With Britain on the Security Council they could have easily asked for that.

You could solve the Japanese problem by having them react differently when confronted by Perry with steamships and rifles. The US may never have demanded the Japanese open up trade, or they could have turned more isolationist likely being dominated by European states much like China was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.


How about this: Changing the Great War slightly, the CPC allied with the Soviet Union in a treaty that would give the CPC control of China if they helped the Soviet's drive the KMT and the allied nations out. Rather than invading China for it's own gains, Japan ends up fighting because of its interests in Korea, fighting with the KMT against the CPC and the Soviets. After the war the KMT controls China, Japan controls what is now South Korea, and even Formosa (Taiwan).

Could it be that Japan held interests in Manchuria and Korea in order to facilitate the movement of troops and materials into the war zone, and later as part of a treaty with China, to facilitate trade?

All that would remain is wiping the "North Korean" problem off of the TSU history. But then, as a larger power, Japan should also be on the UN Security Council - especially since I know they were a big part of the League of Nations. That would be (7) members of the Security Council.

I'd be interested to see what happened to the Soviet Union when it reverted to Russia. Without the first World War to create Poland and the Baltic states or break up the Austrian-Hungarian Empire I wonder which states would have been created. The Ukraine would have been likely to try and break off from a significantly weakened Russia. The insanity that happened here may be too much when the real purpose is to get to the Solar Union.


The Democratic wars could easily have created the Baltic states and Poland - as a responsible government, the United States and her allies would be inclined to let each of those people self-rule. It is the right thing to do, right?

However, with Russia, we could easily take a page from the lack of a US/USSR cold war. If the United States assisted Russia in the rebuilding with Leon Trotsky we could have a similar situation to what we had after the cold war with Gorbachav: a budding democratic nation that breaks up (Ukraine, Latvian states, etc.) and spends a few decades re-building and learning how to handle itself before settling down and figuring it out.

Another possibility is that we could take China and Russia OUT of the Security Council and have the original 5 members as it was, and then add more later as they stabilize (China, Russia, Ukraine, etc.) until the formation of the Earth Union. The assumption that people will tend towards social democracy and responsible government would inherently negate many of the drastic events from then to now simply because people won't be focused on greed and evil, but rather responsibility and growth with the goal of building utopian societies.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: History Page

Postby xzvfstarfire on Tue 22 Dec 2009 20:26

Social Democracy is an interesting concept and its implementation in the late 19th century as an American driven policy could have interesting impacts. When dealing with human nature, I'm often reminded of the prisoners dilemma. From Wikipedia: Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?

In your society they will both stay silent because they trust each other. In current society they will both defect because they don't trust.

Most colonies prior to the US Civil War were small and produced high value/low volume trade goods (Caribbean Islands, Indian and Chinese trading posts). As sail migrated to steam, the Royal Navy snagged up a bunch of coaling stations to maintain its world wide reach. Since the British industrialized first, they advocated free trade because they had the cheapest and highest quality goods. The French and eventually the rest of Europe reached out aggressively to create protected markets while the British converted economic domination into political rule in most of it's colonies. The United States was able to move west and take land from Mexico and colonies from Spain. I wonder how Lincoln would have handled the Indian (American) Wars, the Texas War of Independence, and the Mexican-American War. While not significant to the US in the long run, a responsible US government probably wouldn't have fought the Spanish-American war. The botching of reconstruction in the South a responsible government wouldn't have done. Taking the vote away from anyone that served in the Rebel Army pretty much created two decades (women couldn't vote either), where only ex-slaves and carpetbaggers could hold office. This created a ton of resentment that led directly to the "Jim Crow" laws and a century of repression and economic turmoil.
xzvfstarfire
Lieutenant JG
Lieutenant JG
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat 08 Aug 2009 15:15

Re: History Page

Postby Cralis on Tue 22 Dec 2009 21:22

Right exactly. The 'more reponsible' government would then have relatively happy, enfranchised people who trust their government to treat them properly. No cold war, friendly foreign governments, and a world-wide governmental infrastructure could lead to a world-wide government.

Compare that today, where we have a history of disenfranchisement, where we cannot trust our government to let us keep our rights - let alone treat us fairly, and foreigners who want to screw everyone else at every turn... IMHO world government is VERY far away. Well, someone could establish some form of dictatorial government, but I don't see that happening.

The big deal is that this responsible government will become a motive force rather than a historical one, kicked off by a change in the United States history. This would allow these changes to start picking up steam as the European nations start losing momentum in the world, and by the early 1900's after President Roosevelt's term the United States is a 'social democracy' in all that it entails. Rather than being the beacon of 'freedom' as we our now, it is a beacon of 'fairness' and taking responsibility for the welfare of its citizens.

*rubs hands together*

This will be an interesting history!

PS. Crime is an interesting subject. Would it be less prevalent because it would be deemed irresponsible behavior? Or would it be more prevalent because the government would take it upon itself to retrain the criminal, teach them new skills, get them counseling, or pretty much anything except make them pay for the crime (vengeance is not a fair or responsible behavior, therefore punishment as a means of correction would pretty much be out).

Also how about organized crime? Or conspiracy? Would those be more or less likely in this type of environment?
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: History Page

Postby xzvfstarfire on Wed 23 Dec 2009 21:25

On further research, there was a significant Zionist movement for a homeland starting early in the 20th century. Its likely that Israel would have been created regardless of historical genocide.

Crime really depends on your social structure. Street crime normally comes out of communities that feel isolated and oppressed by the government and society. You'll have crime if economic "fairness" means the majority of the population is equally poor. If consumer goods, food, medicine and education are available to all, but rationed, a black market will develop. Vices are a source of income for organized crime. How society handle drugs, gambling and prostitution, will determine how significant organized crime becomes. There are also the truly mentally ill people that will maintain a certain level of lawlessness, but that is low.
xzvfstarfire
Lieutenant JG
Lieutenant JG
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat 08 Aug 2009 15:15

Next

Return to [SDS] History of the Terran Solar Union

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest