Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes

[Superman]

[Georgepatton]

All the Chinese could muster was 1.6 million?

[Superman]

Originally Posted by Georgepatton

All the Chinese could muster was 1.6 million?

1.8, actually. The 1.6 was the Russians. But seriously, would you really send too many people to fight against a major world power? No matter who's fighting, I don't think the Chinese would risk that many of their own people if there is a high likelihood that they are going to lose

[Georgepatton]

Originally Posted by Superman

1.8, actually. The 1.6 was the Russians. But seriously, would you really send too many people to fight against a major world power? No matter who's fighting, I don't think the Chinese would risk that many of their own people if there is a high likelihood that they are going to lose

But they did lose! If they thought they were going to lose, then why did they fight?

Furthermore, how did they lose? Going by the photo and their list of friends, they had NATO equipment and weapons. Nixon was apparently backing them to the hilt.

[Mathalamus]

China losing aganst the soviet union is..sketchy. don't they have way more population, and fighting on their own land, and Russian logistics.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by Georgepatton

But they did lose! If they thought they were going to lose, then why did they fight?

Furthermore, how did they lose? Going by the photo and their list of friends, they had NATO equipment and weapons. Nixon was apparently backing them to the hilt.

We lost Vietnam, even with the US being directly involved and the Soviet Union only "supporting" the North Vietnamese

[Archangel Michael]

Originally Posted by Superman

We lost Vietnam, even with the US being directly involved and the Soviet Union only "supporting" the North Vietnamese

Except that the United States practically won that war in the field but lost the public lost the will to keep fighting despite that. I don't think the Soviet Union or China would have that issue.

[Turquoise Blue]

Hmm... I'm tempted to create an "Australia without Coalitions". It probably would be a Labor-wank, but I'll go ahead...

[Turquoise Blue]

Alright... The title shall be Urban vs. Rural: An Australia Without the Coalition.

Here's the first entry that of 1922.

[Abhakhazia]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

Alright... The title shall be Urban vs. Rural: An Australia Without the Coalition.

Here's the first entry that of 1922.

Ooh, a good one.

[Turquoise Blue]

Originally Posted by Abhakhazia

Ooh, a good one.

Turns out some of the time the Coalition was only needed to break the majority. Like in 1925. So Stanley Bruce's Prime Minister, I'm afraid...

[Abhakhazia]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

Turns out some of the time the Coalition was only needed to break the majority. Like in 1925. So Stanley Bruce's Prime Minister, I'm afraid...

Will the Nationals take on a different role? Like a Social Conservative, Economic Liberal role? To pull out some of the rural base?

[Turquoise Blue]

Originally Posted by Abhakhazia

Will the Nationals take on a different role? Like a Social Conservative, Economic Liberal role? To pull out some of the rural base?

No. It'll remain as it is. This is essentially tinkering with Aussie OTL elections to see how it would have gone without the Coalition.

[The Red]

Originally Posted by TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner

I was playing around with some of the sites in the Election Seat Calculator thread, and wanted to see what would happen if I swapped the popular vote percentages for the 2011 Canadian election and the 2010 UK election. Conservative=Conservative, Labour=Liberal, and Liberal Democrats=New Democrats.

Would it not make more sense to equate Labour with the New Democrats and the Liberals with the Liberal Democrats?

[Turquoise Blue]

To The Red, yes, but in political position, the Liberals are part of the "Big Two" of Canadian politics, only getting third last year. Labour is the closest equivalent.

And here's the next installment of Urban vs. Rural: A Coalition-less Australia.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Originally Posted by The Red

Would it not make more sense to equate Labour with the New Democrats and the Liberals with the Liberal Democrats?

If I was going by ideology then yes. But prior to the 2011 election, the NDP was the "half" in Canada's two and a half party system, sort of like the Liberal Democrats are in the UK. If I were simulating future elections, I probably would equate NDP with Labour, since they crushed the Liberals in 2011 and now fill the role of the major left-wing party.

[Turquoise Blue]

*Whistles* Those things are quite easy to do...

Here's the 1928 edition of Urban vs. Rural: A Coalition-less Australia. And cause to celebrate! Bruce is kicked out, and Scullin is in!

[Noravea]

Viva la Reagan Revolution!

Following the failed joint effort by the United States and Argentina to capture Bermuda from New York and the Falklands from Britain respectively, public opposition by Socialist leader Ronald Reagan hit a high. Just a month after the end of the Bermuda War, protests broke out across the United States in favor of forcing the resignation of Jimmy Carter. On July 4th, 1982, protests reached a high point when Reaganite militias seized control of Chicago. Militias over the next few days seized most of the Midwest and Great Plains, while secessionist forces in the Pacific Northwest seized Seattle and declared the formation of the Free Republic of Cascadia. The Reagan Revolution had begun. Jimmy Carter quickly deployed the United States Army to put down the rebellion, and while he saw initial success throughout the remainder of 1982 and early 1983, the Spring and Summer of 1983, when the United States Army besieged Chicago, proved to be his undoing when Cuba entered the war to support Reagan. The Siege of Chicago ended in September 1983, and Reagan, with Cuban support, pushed down the Mississippi and captured New Orleans, one of Carter's most loyal cities in the country. The Winter of 1983-1984 saw massive amounts of monetary support come in from President Cuomo in New York, Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom, and Jerry Brown in California, in an effort to aid Reagan. In December 1983, Reagan exiles who had made New York their home since the failed 1976 Reaganite Uprising, had crossed the border into Pennsylvania, capturing Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. In November 1984, Washington D.C. fell after the Reaganite forces attacked the city. President Carter fled to Atlanta, Georgia, where he set up his new government, but Atlanta too fell on December 26th, 1984. On January 9th, 1985, Carter was captured in Plains, Georgia, while he was en route to Florida, his last bastion of support. He was tried and forced into exile, fleeing to Argentina. On January 20th, 1985, Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, ushering in almost two decades of socialist rule in the United States.

Jimmy Carter would flee Argentina in 1988 after a socialist revolution supported by Reagan took over the country. Carter, along with Mondale, would flee to Canada, and eventually to Wisconsin from 1992 to 1994, and Vermont from 1994 to 2001. In 2001, New York offered to allow Carter to live in the country, and in 2012, the United States allowed Carter to return to the country to live in Plains, Georgia, for the remainder of his life.

[LendleAlba]

Socialist Ronald Reagan?

How the hell...?



Seriously, you should try to make a TL based off of this, it looks VERY interesting.

[Noravea]

Originally Posted by LendleAlba

Socialist Ronald Reagan?

How the hell...?



Seriously, you should try to make a TL based off of this, it looks VERY interesting.

It's in a TL I'm currently working on, my New York, New York one.