Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes V (Do Not Post Current Politics Here)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode

Airesien

Prussia (German: Preußen), officially the Free Republic of Prussia (German: Freie Republik Preußen) is a country located in Central and Eastern Europe. It is situated along the southern and southeastern shores of the Baltic Sea and is bordered by Poland to the south and west and Lithuania to the north and east. With a population of 5.3 million, it is the 118th most populous country in the world and the 20th most populous member of the European Union. Prussia's capital and largest city, with an estimated population of 1.5 million, is Preussiberg. Other major cities include Elbing, Allenstein and Gumbinnen. The country's official language is German and the vast majority speaks the Prussian dialect as their native language. Officially, the country also has two recognised languages – Lithuanian and Polish – thanks to the significant Lithuanian and Polish diasporas in south and east of the country. Its currency is currently the Prussian mark, although the country is expected to adopt the Euro as it has met EU financial criteria.

Prussia entered the ranks of the great powers shortly after becoming a kingdom in the 18th century and exercised considerable influence in the 18th and 19th centuries. During the 18th century it had a major say in many international affairs under the reign of Frederick the Great. During the 19th century, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck united the German principalities into a "Lesser Germany", which excluded the Austrian Empire. At the Congress of Vienna (1814–15), which redrew the map of Europe following Napoleon's defeat, Prussia acquired rich new territories, including the coal-rich Ruhr. The country then grew rapidly in influence economically and politically, and became the core of the North German Confederation in 1867 and then of the German Empire in 1871.

The Kingdom ended in 1918 along with other German monarchies that collapsed as a result of the German Revolution. In the Weimar Republic, the Free State of Prussia lost nearly all of its legal and political importance following the 1932 coup led by Franz von Papen. Subsequently, it was effectively dismantled into Nazi German Gaue in 1935. Nevertheless, some Prussian ministries were kept and Hermann Göring remained in his role as Minister President of Prussia until the end of World War II. In the aftermath of World War II, the province of East Prussia was occupied by the Soviet Union, who then granted the province independence from Germany as the People's Republic of Prussia, a Marxist-Leninist one-party state and satellite of the USSR. Between 1949 and 1990, the country was ruled by the People's Socialist Party of Prussia (VSP). The VSP was overthrown in the violent Prussian Revolution and the present-day Free Republic was established in its place in 1990. Since then, the country has experienced high population and economic growth – some of the highest levels in Europe – and joined NATO in 2004 and the European Union, after a successful referendum, in 2007.

As well as being a member of the EU and NATO, Prussia is also a member of the Council of Europe, Schengen Agreement and the OECD. It is also a member of the Nordic-Baltic Nine and, as of 2013, the Nordic Investment Bank. According to the United Nations Human Development Index, Prussia is a "very high human development" country.

Prussia.png
 
InfernoMole

InfernoMole

"Romney is a robber baron. He has ensured himself a steady flow of capital at the expense of the workers, the petite bourgeoisie, and Massachusetts. His actions as a Secretary have shown his willingness to make money at the expense of America - German trade deal, anyone?"
~ Michael Ignatieff, June 30th of 2016

"I- I think it is staggering that Romney accuses me of misconduct in my campaign. I am, and always have been, an enemy of party bosses, their lavish lifestyles and their business empires. Party bosses have rigged the Convention in Romney's favor. Statistics show that the vast majority of anti-Democratic ads running in Ohio, New York and Massachusetts right now are sponsored by the Reid, Hanna and Taft subsidiaries. Romney has the support of the party, but not the people."
~ Michael Ignatieff, July 19th of 2016

"Does Ignatieff even understand what he's talking about? The steel deal of 2014 has benefitted both Germany and America - it has brought us millions of dollars. Yet Iggy's Boston Journal continues to produce falsehood after falsehood, claiming the Republican administration to be, quote, 'worse than Tsongas'. And this is not even mentioning how much this has helped housing and business..."
~ Millard Romney, July 1st of 2016

"It is a fact that Misha Ignatieff is in the pocket of the Czar. KEEP RUSSKY BOZO OUT OF THE LAND OF THE FREE!"
~ Anti-Ignatieff ad posted on Banter, sponsored by "Thaddeus Koscziusko Wide-Awake Committee of Chicago", September 7th of 2016

"Even though it has been ruled that there were no ties between my campaign team and St. Petersburg, baseless accusations of the Republican Party's establishment continue. It truly speaks volumes about the corruption of the 'Party of Lincoln' that they resort to such lowbrow attacks."
~ Michael Ignatieff, April 28th of 2018

kyu8z7.png
 
Last edited:
TheNixonator

TheNixonator

Last edited:
BlackentheBorg

BlackentheBorg

Banned
please don't be considered current politics please don't be considered current politics please don't be considered current politics please don't be considered current politics

KUyINJg.png
 
THeaven

THeaven

PSX_20190513_132732.jpg

I'm not sure if The failed assassination of Bill Clinton in the Philippines happened before or after the 1996 election but ITTL it was before Clinton's reelection
 

Pat Paul

Extremely rough first go at this. Please do leave suggestions of who else could be added to this.

Post World War Two, a growing intellectual movement in the 1950s arose in favor of communal and traditionalist values. It included heavy hitters like Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, and L. Brent Bozell Jr.(Bill Buckley's brother in law). They were coined by fellow traditionalist Peter Viereck as the "new conservatives" owing to the fact that conservative at that point usually referred to anti-New Deal Republicans.

New Conservatism would come to differ itself from New Deal Liberalism and the rising Fusionist(or "Freedom") Conservatism of Buckley and Frank Meyer by putting the community above the indivisual, and order and tradition above liberty. They were also distrustful of free markets and centralized regulation(although it should be noted that some like Viereck supported the New Deal due to it preventing radicalism), and came to support Wilhelm Röpke's social market economics, which favored decentralization, communities, state support of agriculture, industry, and the family through regulation of private corporations.

The movement would go on to break all ties with the fusionists at the Chicago Summit and set up their own competing magazines and think tanks. It would also find favor with Republican political consultants like Mel Bradford and Pat Buchanan and former candidate Richard Nixon. When Nixon did assume the presidency, he would go on to usher in an era of "Nixonian Toryism", partially backed by "Paleo Democrats" who had come in favor of New Conservative policies.

P.S. For those wondering why "Toryism" is such a big feature. Even though FDR regularly used the term "economic toryism" to describe anti-New Deal Republicans as elitist, a new appreciation of the British and their Tory Premier Winston Churchill led to the term having a positive annotation. The New Conservatives also drew heavy inspiration from Edmund Burke, especially following the American reprinting of his 1790 "Reflections on the Revolution in France" in 1950 which would find a home in every American household fearing communist revolution. That and "Nixonian Toryism" probably being the best thing ever.

Screen Shot 2019-05-13 at 3.05.30 PM.png
Screen Shot 2019-05-13 at 3.05.53 PM.png
 
Last edited:
X_X

X_X

American History X

When you're a president like Albert Johnson who wants to do some Jacksonian removal of certain "undesirable" groups, you need an Attorney General who'll be a yes-man to your genocidal waste on the soils of this so-called "free land". You'll need Ulysses S. Webb, Attorney General of California, one of the country's biggest fans of the eugenics system that the public is devouring like confectionery. Webb will makes sure everything's blurred in the tricky red tape of Washington, so when they begin asking why the Asians aren't returning from their "camps" or why the Jews have stopped having babies, the president will always have a confidant answer on the defense of this country's liberty. It's all in the security of freedom. And certainly, you reassure yourself on those rare nights with doubt in your fractured mind, it's what the Grand Old Party has always stood for...

"And when will people stop judging the history of the Republican Party?! Men like Johnson and Webb kept our nation safe, they are the backbone of modern American conservatism!"
"And the statements Webb gave on the Chinese you defended recently?"
"I say if you're offended by that to get over yourself, you snowflake libtard!" -Conservation between Governor James L. Hart (R-TN) and journalist, 2007

upload_2019-5-13_15-2-43.png


More from this series:

Albert Johnson and Clarence Morley
 
ETGalaxy

ETGalaxy

Arthur Marston said:
*desire to know more intensifies
Click to expand...
I'm glad you're interested by this scenario! My hope is to eventually make infoboxes for all of the monarchs of America and Fredonia to the present day. I definitely can't guarantee that, but I personally had a lot of fun making this so I'll definitely try to work on the infobox for King Richard I.
 

Lacktoastandtolerant

The 2010 election resulted in a hung parliament, with the Liberal Democrats having a fairly strong showing as a third party and ending up kingmaker. Theoretically, the LibDems could have sided with either of the big two parties, but for practical purposes, a Lib-Con coalition was the most likely result (and what happened OTL) because it allowed for a majority with just two parties, while a Liberal-Labour pact would also need to rely on at least 3 other small parties just for a bare majority of 27 seats

Early in the campaign, after the first debate, the Liberal Democrats surged and actually had a lead in some polls. As the campaign went on, they would drop somewhat, and then a bit more shortly before the election, presumably as people decided to vote the lesser evil. But what if the Liberal Democrats held onto their lead?

Here's a scenario where (for whatever reason) the LibDems do better, and the poll with the highest LibDem lead ends up as the result. The LibDems end up the largest party in terms of popular vote, but due to the First Past the Post system, end up just the third largest party. Still, they end up with nearly three times the number of seats they attained OTL, and are able to form a simple two-party majority coalition with either of the big two. A Lib-Lab coalition is thus much more feasible... but on the other hand, after 13 years of Labour governance, the LibDem leadership might be in the mood for a change in that regard and might still go with the Tories. Either way, they can probably extract more concessions from either party-which might help them avoid the sharp drop in popularity they saw OTL leading up to the 2015 election, although perhaps being in government leads to them losing some of that protest vote appeal and still suffering major losses in 2015

cleggmania infobox.jpg
 
Gentleman Biaggi

Gentleman Biaggi

Banned
Col. Angus said:
The 2010 election resulted in a hung parliament, with the Liberal Democrats having a fairly strong showing as a third party and ending up kingmaker. Theoretically, the LibDems could have sided with either of the big two parties, but for practical purposes, a Lib-Con coalition was the most likely result (and what happened OTL) because it allowed for a majority with just two parties, while a Liberal-Labour pact would also need to rely on at least 3 other small parties just for a bare majority of 27 seats

Early in the campaign, after the first debate, the Liberal Democrats surged and actually had a lead in some polls. As the campaign went on, they would drop somewhat, and then a bit more shortly before the election, presumably as people decided to vote the lesser evil. But what if the Liberal Democrats held onto their lead?

Here's a scenario where (for whatever reason) the LibDems do better, and the poll with the highest LibDem lead ends up as the result. The LibDems end up the largest party in terms of popular vote, but due to the First Past the Post system, end up just the third largest party. Still, they end up with nearly three times the number of seats they attained OTL, and are able to form a simple two-party majority coalition with either of the big two. A Lib-Lab coalition is thus much more feasible... but on the other hand, after 13 years of Labour governance, the LibDem leadership might be in the mood for a change in that regard and might still go with the Tories. Either way, they can probably extract more concessions from either party-which might help them avoid the sharp drop in popularity they saw OTL leading up to the 2015 election, although perhaps being in government leads to them losing some of that protest vote appeal and still suffering major losses in 2015

View attachment 459361
Click to expand...
Love
 

Pat Paul

As a followup to my previous post:

A growing individualistic and libertarian orientation had been growing on the American right since they had began their opposition to FDR's New Deal policies. Foundations like the Volker Fund and the Foundation for Economic Education(FEE), along with periodicals like "The Freeman" would serve to produce a new generation of American rightists, centered on free markets and individual rights. As the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Union heated up, a brewing Red Scare would lead to many on the right to replace their traditional realist foreign policy with anti-communist containment.

The two most prominent of these new figures were libertarian Frank Meyer and conservative William F. Buckley. They came to recognize that the growing libertarian, anti-communist, and conservative movements needed to coalesce into a broader and more powerful fusionist force. However, the New Conservatives would dominate the early 1950s both literary and intellectually, with Kirk, Weaver, Viereck publishing top selling books and drawing thousands to their lectures. Meyer viewed these non-conformist traditionalist too dismissive of free markets and individuals and too European in their origins.

It was in this context that Buckley would launch "National Review". The magazine would unite heavy hitters like James Burnham, F.A. Hayek, and Irving Kristol. The magazine embodied the fusionist ideals of Buckley along with with his focus on "American Exceptionalism", an ideology that saw the values and history as exceptional and indispensable among history. The magazine was more successful than Meyer and Buckley could have imagined, and Buckley finally decided to roll the dice and invite the traditionalists to a meeting in Chicago to hammer out a cohesive front. However, Kirk personally remained skeptical, and advised Richard Weaver to attend the summit. At the convention when Hayek and Meyer pushed a proposal for the traditionalists to adopt free market economics in exchange for a codifying of Christian values, Weaver called their bluff and led the traditionalists to walk out. The Philadelphia Manifesto would act as the New Conservative rebuke of any future attempts at fusionism.

Buckley pushed on with his next projects, founding the university organization Young Americans for Freedom(YAF) and publishing the Sharon statement. And while another blow would come when the traditionalist-allied Wilhelm Ropke wrestled control of the Mont Pelerin Society from Hayek, the immediate launching of the Mises Institute would soften the blow. Going into the mid 1960s, the Freedom Conservatives, as they would brand themselves, would come to be more involved in the Civil Rights movement. "Free Soil, Free Trade, Free Markets, Free Men" would be the slogan National Review adopted as they railed against the "collectivist idiocy" of New Conservatism, communism, and segregation. It would also serve to push the rising stars of Goldwater and Ronald Reagan against Nixon's tories.

Screen Shot 2019-05-14 at 7.17.14 PM.png
Screen Shot 2019-05-14 at 7.17.43 PM.png


I'd like to thank you all for the warm response the first part got. I'd now like to ask a general question. As I mentioned, Richard Nixon does eventually become president, but I never said he would do so under the Republican Party. Brent Bozell IOTL did propose to Buckley and Burnham in 1958 a new political party. However, the "Conservative split causing new Third Party" is taken by existing projects. That and the intellectual and literary battles that could be raged seems more appealing to me, and perhaps having a more fractious Republican Party would be a better take. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top