Sietch Wikibox Thread

Assassination of Lee Atwater

Eparkhos

Well-known member


In hindsight, the beginning of the Appalachian Conflict was remarkably small. The anti-government forces in the Smokies had been gaining size and strength for several years by the time People's First Citizen Horton was appointed over the Appalachian People's State, and with his aggressive policy against these movements it was only a matter of time until the conflict began in earnest. In May 1990, a tip-off was received about a non-existent moonshine still in an isolated part of Yancey County, and the extremely unpopular Political Captain Lee Atwater--Horton's chief lieutenant in the Cherokee District--was convinced by a sympathetic member of the state administration to investigate the lead personally. Of course, the whole thing was a trap set by an uneasy alliance between the People's Patriotic Movement of William Fesperman, a Christian Socialist group who wanted less government intervention in the region, and the New Blue Legion, a right-wing movement who wanted to overthrow the government completely. As soon as the armored car carrying Atwater and his men reached a narrow bend in the road, they were engulfed in a hail of gunfire that killed the Political Captain and three others instantly and forced the surviving driver to veer off the road. The militias then descended on the wreck and killed the other two fatalities, leaving one Red Guardsman for dead in a grim portent of the brutality that would characterize the conflict in later years....
 

Circle of Willis

Well-known member
Came across a really old wikibox I made for a timeline I'd toyed with back in 2016-17 before giving up on it, centered around a hotter Cold War and much more intense unrest in America due to an unfortunate string of presidents who were either rather weak on Jim Crow or outright segregationists themselves. What follows, well, I think this longass wikibox can speak for itself - all the major story beats I had sketched out are in the results.

Wasn't particularly realistic in hindsight, but it proved a good learning experience. That and I've mined some of my old notes for ideas for Dewey Defeats Truman (not the segregationist Dixiecrat presidents or 2ACW part obviously, but things like the Soviet Union & PRC having more hardline leaders, for example).

nQ0pCZ7.png
 

Circle of Willis

Well-known member
So something between the Troubles and the Dirty War?
Yeah, pretty much. I had thought up plans for a second, lower-intensity phase of the conflict immediately following this one (the 'American Troubles' mentioned in the results) but didn't get around to writing much for it before burning out. All I have for that phase is a few barebones concepts: that it'd have been centered on libertarian factions fighting the military junta now controlling the States (with the far-left and Naziesque guys having already been destroyed in this previous round) and that it'd follow the trend of the late-stage rebels of the '2ACW' in being less about 'rising' and holding cities, or at least their urban cores, against the feds for extended periods of time, and more about subterfuge.
 
Fear and Loathing in Zaire

Eparkhos

Well-known member


I've been reading a biography of Hunter S. Thompson recently, and while he was in Kinshasa to cover the Rumble in the Jungle in 1974 he tried to one-up a rival reporter by convincing Mobutu to let him watch the game with him. He failed, falling into the hotel pool and nearly drowning before being fished out. But what if he hadn't, and (with Thompson's immense charisma, him doing this seems entirely possible) befriended Mobutu? Cover image (Mobutu with skull) credit to Gunduz Agayev.

OTL, Thompson destroyed his writing career with extreme drug use and alcoholism, which might've been avoided if he'd listened to Jann Wenner more or just had less shitty friends. I might turn this into a series based off some of his other failed projects in the 70s and 80s (F&L in Hawaii, which was partially completed as The Curse of Lono, F&L in Grenada, etc...)
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
Came across a really old wikibox I made for a timeline I'd toyed with back in 2016-17 before giving up on it, centered around a hotter Cold War and much more intense unrest in America due to an unfortunate string of presidents who were either rather weak on Jim Crow or outright segregationists themselves. What follows, well, I think this longass wikibox can speak for itself - all the major story beats I had sketched out are in the results.

Wasn't particularly realistic in hindsight, but it proved a good learning experience. That and I've mined some of my old notes for ideas for Dewey Defeats Truman (not the segregationist Dixiecrat presidents or 2ACW part obviously, but things like the Soviet Union & PRC having more hardline leaders, for example).

nQ0pCZ7.png
A shame, this would have been quite the interesting ATL.
 

Circle of Willis

Well-known member
A shame, this would have been quite the interesting ATL.
You know, in recent weeks I've grown more tempted to go back to try & make a proper timeline out of that Wikibox (or rather out of its core concept, I can already detect some stuff I should be changing/refining even if I were to keep the basic story beats), now that I've gotten back in the groove of AH writing and am reasonably sure that I've improved my skills since I first came up with it. Maybe one of these days, after I complete Vivat Stilicho first...
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
You know, in recent weeks I've grown more tempted to go back to try & make a proper timeline out of that Wikibox (or rather out of its core concept, I can already detect some stuff I should be changing/refining even if I were to keep the basic story beats), now that I've gotten back in the groove of AH writing and am reasonably sure that I've improved my skills since I first came up with it. Maybe one of these days, after I complete Vivat Stilicho first...
K.If you write it I'd love to read it.
I'd love to see what might happen with such a timeline once it reaches the late 70s and early 80s.
The Clintons' political ambitions for starters will get dashed since Hillary represented a bunch of black panthers that burned an alleged police informant alive, and since that Byrd guy is president I suppose that LBJ got removed from history in some way.
I'd say that something happened to discredit a lot of the more liberal/progressive democrats.
Like maybe a big scandal involving the events that led up to the 1960 presidential election.
Most plausible situation is:
1) LBJ dies early and there is a falling out between more conservative and more progressive Democrats.
2) Byrd is selected as his alternate running mate.
3) JFK resigns later in his presidency, let us say because of a sex scandal and his escalating health issues.
EDIT: The fact that 3 happens pisses off the more extreme liberals even further, with some fringe faction deciding to off the new president.Maybe he wins in 1964, only to have his Watergate moment and other scandals.That would plausibly leave Byrd as the president.
 
Last edited:

Circle of Willis

Well-known member
K.If you write it I'd love to read it.
I'd love to see what might happen with such a timeline once it reaches the late 70s and early 80s.
The Clintons' political ambitions for starters will get dashed since Hillary represented a bunch of black panthers that burned an alleged police informant alive, and since that Byrd guy is president I suppose that LBJ got removed from history in some way.
I'd say that something happened to discredit a lot of the more liberal/progressive democrats.
Like maybe a big scandal involving the events that led up to the 1960 presidential election.
Most plausible situation is:
1) LBJ dies early and there is a falling out between more conservative and more progressive Democrats.
2) Byrd is selected as his alternate running mate.
3) JFK resigns later in his presidency, let us say because of a sex scandal and his escalating health issues.
EDIT: The fact that 3 happens pisses off the more extreme liberals even further, with some fringe faction deciding to off the new president.Maybe he wins in 1964, only to have his Watergate moment and other scandals.That would plausibly leave Byrd as the president.
Thanks for the interest, and the follow! I prefer to avoid using people who got famous IRL in high-profile roles for my timelines, with rare exceptions - and the Clintons certainly wouldn't qualify. So definitely I'd like to avoid getting Bill or Hillary (then Rodham) anywhere near the White House in favor of more obscure & out-of-the-box candidates, maybe give them a few passing mentions but that'd be it.

As for the POD and alternative candidates, been brainstorming this past hour and I'm thinking of something further back in time for the former now, and reevaluating the chances of Byrd landing in the White House for the latter. ATM I'm chiefly considering having Hubert Humphrey (perhaps the platonic ideal of the 'patriotic liberal') fail in getting a civil rights plank added to the Democratic platform in 1948, ensuring no Dixiecrat split and empowering the Progressive Party of Henry Wallace into becoming a longer-lasting 'third rail' in American politics throughout the 1950s. This I feel is the earliest POD I can roll with to secure a more overtly segregationist Democratic Party, even earlier than the one I used for Dewey Defeats Truman (where it was the titular event), without going to a pre-WW2's-end POD (which I don't really want to do). If I can get some later elections to become really contentious, as in 'riddled with controversy and even thrown to the House', to crank up the political temperature in the lead-up to the fireworks starting in 1968-ish, all the better.

Byrd I'm thinking of replacing, since he was too staunch a Dixiecrat to win any support north of the Mason-Dixon Line (dude was ardently opposed to the New Deal, which would've destroyed him with the Democrats' traditional white northern base - 'white ethnic' blue-collar workers, from assembly linemen to cops, such as the Irish and Italians). The main alternatives I'm weighing now are George Smathers of Florida, one of JFK's personal friends and a relative moderate on segregation by Southern standards, who at least voted for some desegregationist measures IRL; and Sam Ervin of North Carolina, who seems to have fit the 'segregationist hiding behind a libertarian smokescreen' stereotype much better than the people Democrats like to accuse of that the most, Republicans Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul, but was still less of a fire-eater and thus a smidge more presentable to Northern audiences than Byrd. I already made Smathers president in DDT, so I'm leaning towards Ervin ATM.

Of course, then I still have to fill the gap between 1948 and 1968-69 (to be done in the prologue most likely). Gonna need a way to have the USSR turn really hard-line as well, much as it did in the Wikibox - would prefer to avoid having Khrushchev not come to power at all since I also already did that in DDT, so instead I'm looking at possibilities leading up to and involving the Anti-Party Group's attempted coup in 1957 (maybe he screws up hard enough to give Hungary & Yugoslavia to the West while also not starting WW3, I'm not 100% sure yet). But there's no rush, I expect VS will be taking up my attention for a long while yet, so unless I'm arrested by the RCMP in the next few weeks I'll have plenty of time to brainstorm further & iron out the plot.
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Hmm; interesting thread. :unsure:

Never created Wikibox before, so I don’t suppose anyone could enlighten me as to how I’d do it? For obvious reasons, I’m assuming you don’t actually submit it as an actual Wiki article, though it looks to me like there’s either an option to screen-cap Wiki edits before submitting them or some other software that enables users to create Wikiboxes themselves.
 

Eparkhos

Well-known member
Hmm; interesting thread. :unsure:

Never created Wikibox before, so I don’t suppose anyone could enlighten me as to how I’d do it? For obvious reasons, I’m assuming you don’t actually submit it as an actual Wiki article, though it looks to me like there’s either an option to screen-cap Wiki edits before submitting them or some other software that enables users to create Wikiboxes themselves.
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.

Thanks; format's a bit "confusing" to me, but I appreciate the tip-off. (y)



Exactly what it says on the tin. I'll elaborate later, but as of now I'm tired and logging off.


Been meaning to comment on this, though wasn't sure exactly what to say until now.

For one, it's pretty striking to me how this time, the "good guys" (more specifically, the Western Allies the UN) took way less losses than the Allies during World War II, while this time, the "bad guys" (the Warsaw Pact and other "eastern" communist regimes) bore the brunt of the butcher's bill, over 64 million dead and whatnot. Would assume mass-deployment of nukes and bioweapons is the main culprit here, especially since even IOTL, the US's nuclear stockpile trumped the Soviets' until much later in the Cold War. That made itself brutally clear by how World War III ended here, I'm guessing.

Second, while I'm not sure if you've had a chance to flesh out the background since posting, I don't suppose the catalyst had something to do with someone making a bug-fuck crazy gamble in the late '40s? Because I can certainly imagine the Soviets — namely, under the leadership of an elderly, increasingly senile Stalin who's rapidly losing his marbles and whose paranoia is going into overdrive — throwing off their restraints and pulling a "Hitler invades Poland!" that makes Der Führer's ghost grimace. Maybe even against a Twilight of the Red Tsar-style backdrop of the Communist Bloc going straight to Hell along the way — which again, starts with Uncle Joe losing his shit via surviving the stroke that killed him IOTL. Granted, it could also be the West getting cocky and bellicose if hotheads like Patton or MacArthur are any indication, though I certainly wouldn't rule out a mutual fuck-up in which both blocs lose their composure and begin to exchange fire.

Lastly, and as more of a quizzical aside: I'm not really sure I understand why anyone in their right mind would come up with World War III scenarios where only a million or two people die in total? At the very least, I don't recall coming across anything like that myself, though that could easily be because I'm not as "well-acquainted" with the shark-jumping side of AH as you or @Circle of Willis probably are. Frankly, if the prequels each culminated in tens of millions dead in just a few short years — and with way less advanced weaponry at the belligerents' disposal, at that — then I can easily imagine World War III being anywhere from a few notches deadlier (as is depicted in your outline) to "Holy worldwide nuclear holocaust, Batman!" levels of destructive and all-around horrible depending on when, how, and by whom it's fought. But that's just me. :confused:
 

Sergeant Foley

Well-known member
Thanks; format's a bit "confusing" to me, but I appreciate the tip-off. (y)



Been meaning to comment on this, though wasn't sure exactly what to say until now.

For one, it's pretty striking to me how this time, the "good guys" (more specifically, the Western Allies the UN) took way less losses than the Allies during World War II, while this time, the "bad guys" (the Warsaw Pact and other "eastern" communist regimes) bore the brunt of the butcher's bill, over 64 million dead and whatnot. Would assume mass-deployment of nukes and bioweapons is the main culprit here, especially since even IOTL, the US's nuclear stockpile trumped the Soviets' until much later in the Cold War. That made itself brutally clear by how World War III ended here, I'm guessing.

Second, while I'm not sure if you've had a chance to flesh out the background since posting, I don't suppose the catalyst had something to do with someone making a bug-fuck crazy gamble in the late '40s? Because I can certainly imagine the Soviets — namely, under the leadership of an elderly, increasingly senile Stalin who's rapidly losing his marbles and whose paranoia is going into overdrive — throwing off their restraints and pulling a "Hitler invades Poland!" that makes Der Führer's ghost grimace. Maybe even against a Twilight of the Red Tsar-style backdrop of the Communist Bloc going straight to Hell along the way — which again, starts with Uncle Joe losing his shit via surviving the stroke that killed him IOTL. Granted, it could also be the West getting cocky and bellicose if hotheads like Patton or MacArthur are any indication, though I certainly wouldn't rule out a mutual fuck-up in which both blocs lose their composure and begin to exchange fire.

Lastly, and as more of a quizzical aside: I'm not really sure I understand why anyone in their right mind would come up with World War III scenarios where only a million or two people die in total? At the very least, I don't recall coming across anything like that myself, though that could easily be because I'm not as "well-acquainted" with the shark-jumping side of AH as you or @Circle of Willis probably are. Frankly, if the prequels each culminated in tens of millions dead in just a few short years — and with way less advanced weaponry at the belligerents' disposal, at that — then I can easily imagine World War III being anywhere from a few notches deadlier (as is depicted in your outline) to "Holy worldwide nuclear holocaust, Batman!" levels of destructive and all-around horrible depending on when, how, and by whom it's fought. But that's just me. :confused:
My one problem is that it asks for you to pay money if you sign up when making edits, etc.,
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top