Home Page

Announcements 

Alternate Histories

International Edition

List of Updates

Want to join?

Join Writer Development Section

Writer Development Member Section

Join Club ChangerS

Editorial

Chris Comments

Book Reviews

Blog

Letters To The Editor

FAQ

Links Page

Terms and Conditions

Resources

Donations

Alternate Histories

International Edition

Alison Brooks

Fiction

Essays

Other Stuff

Authors

If Baseball Integrated Early

Counter-Factual.Net

Today in Alternate History

This Day in Alternate History Blog

Prelude
 

The main cause of the Seven Years or the Tribulation, which many prefer to call it, was the Gulf War II of 2003. Looking back now, over the last few decades, one can see that the world was truly and bitterly divided over how to deal with the Iraq problem. More to the point, after Gulf War II, the world remained that way. Regardless of world opinion, however, the United States, along with some allies, decided that a war had to be waged against Iraq’s dictator Suddam Hussein.

Other nations of the world, most notably France and Germany, argued differently. This attitude was clearly what the United Nations thought and that other avenues of approach, other than war, should be exhausted before any conflict. In the end, though, the United States, Britain & Australia rejected the pleas of other countries and, most notably, the United Nations.

Thus, come March of 2003, Iraq was attacked by the armed forces of the three allies. Iraq never stood a chance. Although some of its forces held up the invaders, within five weeks it was all over for the Iraqi regime. Significantly, for the Iraqi civilians, most survived. And just as importantly, most of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure survived as well. It did not take long, even with some difficulties, before Iraq was hence remade in the image of a democratic country reflecting that of its liberators. And like the damaged political structure of Iraq had been rebuilt, the physical damage was also soon repaired.

Damage, however, cannot always be measured by mere physical appearances. Much of the time, the physical damage is insignificant. Although to many Iraqis that may have not been the case, to the international community it certainly was. The United States wrongly believed that after Gulf War II was over, things would more or less go back to normal. France might, though be singled out for some attention. In fact it had became a common saying in Washington DC to "Ignore the Russians, forgive the Germans, but punish the French." By the end of 2003, it appeared that this had indeed become official American Government Policy.

Such foreign policy by the Americans ignored one thing: the reaction. Most believed, due to the power of the United States, that no or little retaliatory action could be taken by the French. The French, however, had other ideas. Already a major influence in the European Union, Germany decided not to desert its European ally. They made for an unusual couple, considering their shared history, but in 2004 the world had changed & they changed as a result. With this European marriage, several other nations threw their lot in with the defiant French.

Soon Belgium, Luxembourg & Austria sided with the French, but the big shock for the United States was the change in the Italian & Turkish governments. Both had been pro American in 2003, but repercussions at the ballot box had changed all that. With new pro European governments elected in each country, both now sided with the French-German alliance. Not long afterwards, sensing a change in the political winds, Greece too became lukewarm to American advances and sided with the ‘American  rebellion’.

So by the end of 2004, within eighteen months of Gulf War II, the political face of Western Europe had thus changed. Only Britain and Spain held out as important American allies in Europe. Holland & Denmark had become rather quiet on anything pro American, although officially they never changed their policy position. In a similar fashion, so too did the rest of the Scandinavian countries. Only Portugal, in Western Europe, went along with Britain & Spain.

Eastern Europe, meanwhile, was a mixed bag for both sides. Led by Poland, several Eastern European countries continued to support the United States as they had done during Gulf War II. Only those in the Balkan region remained either hostile or neutral. But these Balkan nations meant little in the overall scheme of things when compared to Russia. She had opposed Gulf War II in 2003 for all sorts of reasons &, come the beginning of 2005, had thrown her lot in with the France-German alliance.

Europe was thus divided, but was still changing. It had become clear to many in Europe that America could no longer lorded it over the world forever. It was no longer the Cold War. The balance in international politics must change argued the Europeans. A few even thought that a clash of some kind, however, seemed inevitable if change was to happen. Most, though, thought a clash was impossible - or so the great majority of Europeans hoped...
 

Beginnings

In the handful of years prior to the Seven Years, or Tribulation, very little suggested that great horror would visit the Earth. Although fears for the future were nothing new for the Human race, the main one being nuclear annihilation, come the Twenty First Century, such fears seemed vanquished. That was not to say that war & destruction had gone away, on the contrary, but it seemed that the Human race had turned the corner for a much greater & brighter future.

Then came Gulf War II. The event itself took a little over five weeks, during which the authoritarian regime of Suddam Hussein was toppled from power in Iraq. In the overall scheme of things, the effort for the three democracies involved, the United States, Great Britain, & Australia, meant little (except of course for the troops involved). But it would not be the fighting on the ground which would change the world, but the effects caused by the war itself for the international community.

Because of Gulf War II, the way the world looked at itself changed dramatically. Most of the People’s of the Earth were against any military action against Iraq. This was summed up nowhere better than in the United Nation’s Security Council which refused to endorse any such action. As a result, the three democracies went ahead with military action anyway, without any authority to do so by the United Nations. And this would split, not too much the world as that was a given, but more importantly it split the Western Democracies of the world.

Differences between nations, whether they be democracies or not, is nothing new. It has been the case from the first nations at the beginning of civilisation through until the end. Most of the time it is just a matter of differing opinions & nothing to go to war over. Other times war is sought for as a remedy, yet this is very rare. What remains is tension, but one which is manageable to a degree. Human history is filled with examples of all these situations. But come post-Gulf War II the world found itself in uncharted territory. All of history never really prepared the Human leaders for the time of the Tribulation.

By the end of 2004, the world had, as a result of the bickering over Gulf War II, split into several power regions. This had been foreseen by the French President in 2003 & somewhat feared by the Americans. In truth, however, it was a untied & democratic Europe which concerned deeply the USA, not necessarily a regional world based upon power blocks. Such blocks the USA knew how to deal with, but a democratic United States of Europe was something altogether new to the anyone’s experience.
 

United Europe
 

To suggest that the European Union was, however, akin to the United States of America is absurd. It simply was not. There was going to be no way on this planet that the different countries of Europe would surrender all of their individual powers to a central government anywhere. They were far too independent. Furthermore, even with all of the positive & peaceful platitudes of today’s European population, there was also plenty of bad blood left over from the past.  Just as there are, still today, ill feelings in America between North & South, it was even more so the case between various nations in Europe.

Having said that, since the Second World War, much had drastically changed in Europe as can be clearly noted in the creation of the European Union (EU). The EU has been called many things, but the one thing that stood out was its democratic nature. Although vastly different in approach to the USA model, the EU was never meant to be a nation as such. It was more like a loose alliance of countries. In this respect it was akin to the early confederation days of the Thirteen Colonies of the United States prior to that country’s adoption of their Constitution.

If anything, Europe continued to remain decentralised to the point of the ridiculous. Although there was a central governing body, supervised by a popularly elected parliament, the separate member nations still hung on to their individual sovereign rights. If the Federal Government of the USA thought State’s right were a obstacle for national government, then the European arrangement ensured perfect anarchy reigned. And many philosophers & commentators have argued, over the centuries, that you could not get any more democratic than having anarchy. Still, things in Europe got done even with its diverse political structures.

Few in the United States understood this about their European cousins & none more so than the bulk of the Bush Administration in 2003. After the war, events in Europe only made things worse from the point of view of the USA. Much of Western Europe & Russia began to side with the French. By the end of 2004, only Britain & Spain continued to support the USA, although Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair, positioned himself to become an intermediary between the Europeans & the USA.

In many respects, this continued Britain’s historical position for many years: be a good ally of the Americans, whilst remaining a good European citizen. Britain, though, was laying its bets on both sides whilst keeping her cards very close to her chest. No one knew where Britain’s interests really laid except Britain. To the European experience, Britain’s actions were nothing new. Britain was behaving as she always was. To the United States, however, they naively believed that, other than a dramatic changed in government, Britain was their strongest ally.

Europe, regardless of Britain’s games, continued to consolidate around the French-German alliance of the post-Gulf War II period. Not all of the European countries, however, were keen supporters. Like Britain, Holland & Denmark remained aloof as to who they really supported. The Europeans thought that they had remained in the American camp albeit with reservations, whilst the Americans thought the opposite. In a similar fashion, the same was thought of Norway, Sweden & Finland. Elsewhere in Europe, though, Poland led the Easterners in a pro American stance. The Russians, however, countered this Eastern block with a pro European stance.

Even with all this going on in Europe, the United States continued to believe that overall nothing was overly wrong with Europe. That was until the United European Force (UEF), which France & Germany had been working on in 2003, became a reality. Furthermore, it was independent of  NATO & anything American. In 2003 the UEF was nothing more than a Headquarters & several pieces of paper. A year later, however, and it had rapidly become a combined forces army of just over 150 000 troops, sailors, & airmen coming from several European nations including a token force from Britain.

It was not, though, the British involvement which caught the eye of the Americans. Rather it was the large commitment from the other European Nations, especially the Italians. Whilst the European land forces came under the influence of the Germans, which was no great surprise, the sea forces were as much under Italian as French influence. Added to these arrangements included forces from Belgium, Austria, Hungary & Greece. Although the overall numbers of personnel involved were low, the quality of the people & machines were the best Europe had on offer. It was a clear signal to the world that Europe was getting serious about its place in the world.

If that was not bad enough for onlookers from the USA, the UEF first operational deployment was highly successful. Ignoring words of advice from the Americans, & ironically from the United Nations, the European Union sent an entire UEF Corps of 40 000 troops on a peacekeeping mission to Serbia, where racial troubles had commenced once again. This Corps was further supported by several UEF Air Force squadrons as well as a UEF Fleet of two aircraft carriers (one French, one Italian) as well as their respective escorts, support & amphibious ships. Thus, in an overwhelming show of force, not to mention excellent planning, the trouble in Serbia had disappeared in a few days. Although it was a extremely successful humanitarian mission, it nevertheless sent the wrong signals to America.
 

United States
 

Even with bad relations with several European countries, the USA was distracted elsewhere. President Bush, after Gulf War II had other international problems, which made the split with Europe appear like a mosquito bite in comparison. Europe was annoying & hard not to scratch, but nothing more than that. North Korea, on the other hand, was something else entirely different.

Relations between North Korea & the USA have never been friendly at the best of times. But now they were about as low as they could go without actually being at war. Having been caught before researching nuclear weapons, not to mention their delivery systems, North Korea announced, in early 2003, that it was once again starting up their nuclear weapons program. With the USA concentrating on Iraq at the time, little could be done to deal with North Korea’s open defiance. That, however, would change once Gulf War II had been successfully completed.

Hence it did not take too long before the USA had reorientated its position towards disarming North Korea from mid 2003 onwards. At first the USA relied on talks as suggested by South Korea. These, however, soon failed even though the situation remained stable. A lot of useless speculation, however, did not help the negotiations as many in the American Bush Administration thought that North Korea was bluffing. The argument went that the rogue country, by taking their current position, could gain many concessions in order to uphold its Stalinist system.

In truth, no one really knew what North Korea was up to except the North Koreans. But the failure of the talks did not seem to worry the North Koreans much. The same could not be said for South Korea, nor for the war hawks in Washington DC, who had just won the Gulf War II & had now set their eyes elsewhere. It was Colin Powell, however, who managed to keep the Korean Peninsular turning into yet another war. He advised President Bush into believing that North Korea would not go the way Iraq did in 2003. Instead, like the first Korean War of the 1950s, the same could be expected in a second war. Rather, Powell believed pressure & sanctions would be a much better alternative for the present.

Thus, based upon Powell’s advise, Bush made two far reaching decisions. The first was the usual run of the mill stuff. Economic sanctions would be applied to the North Koreans. This included just about everything from money to oil to food. Only medical drugs would be permitted into North Korea. The second decision was far more drastic. There would be a major build-up of American forces in the region. Not only would more naval ships & air force planes be stationed in South Korea & Japan, but 50 000 more ground troops would reinforce those already there. Obviously, they would be the best armed troops America had on offer.

Naturally the North Koreans were outraged. Making all kind of threats, including the use of nuclear weapons, the North Koreans made it very clear that they were far from happy with Bush’s decisions. The South Koreans were not overly happy about the situation either, but did not really know what else could be done. Nonetheless, they offered a word of caution to both sides. But it was not the reactions of the two Koreas which caught a few people’s attention, it was those of Japan. Now coming directly under the threat of a possible nuclear attack, Japan began to debate the current situation. It would take some time before she took any action, but ironically few took any notice at the time. Besides, the Europeans had just taken over in Serbia, & that was much bigger news than Japan increasing the size of its 'self defence' force.

The European intervention in Serbia took the Americans by surprise. In many respects this was because they were occupied by events in Korea. In this respect, Bush decided to concern himself with the fact that it appeared that America could soon become isolated in the world, which was far from a good thing. His immediate concern was still, though, Korea & the Middle East. And so it was in these regions which he looked to for help.

Within three months of the business in Serbia, Powell had been kept extremely busy. Flying back & forth to several countries, one after the other, Bush had sent him on a major mission. Two distinct treaties were on the offer. The first was mostly with long time traditional allies. This would bring together a strategic global alliance which would include Britain, Australia, Japan, & Israel. The one new member, though, was an exception & was somewhat surprising: Kuwait. In contrast, the second treaty was to be specific in its charter. It was purely regional in nature. This other treaty was thus a military arrangement between the NAFTA members, namely Canada, the USA & Mexico.

In making these new treaties, America gained two things. First of all, she had an enlarged military power base at home for the first time in 40 years. Furthermore, America’s borders were far more secure as both Mexico & Canada would have to police their borders more effectively than ever before. In the second instance, although nothing new in an historical context, America had once again secured bases at strategic geographical locations around the globe which, incidentally, would also include military support from these member countries. So, if there was trouble in the Middle East or Korea, America, & several allies, would have an immediate secured forward position so it could instantly intervene in any nearby crisis. Fundamentally, however, it meant that America could not be isolated, from the rest of the world, by an expanding Europe. As such, this new alliance also acted as a wall to circumvent any further European expansion outside of that continent.

With his "Twin Treaties", as the media christened these new alliances, Bush had truly done something to secure the slide in American foreign policy since 2003. He would, however, not be in office much longer to enjoy his success. Soon, a new American would come to the Office of the President, one John Drache. And it would be placed upon his shoulders to take America into an uncertain future.
 

On to Year One

Please Comment In The Discussion Forum