沒有國民黨就沒有中國, Without the Kuomintang there would be no China, A Republic of China Story

Also very interesting that this cult-ish movement started as a Dalai Lama pretender.

In the world, the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism are far less known and popular since the Dalai Lama himself has likely stayed in Tibet his whole life. I wonder how much the Tibet Improvement Party has done to make things better.
 
Also very interesting that this cult-ish movement started as a Dalai Lama pretender.

In the world, the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism are far less known and popular since the Dalai Lama himself has likely stayed in Tibet his whole life. I wonder how much the Tibet Improvement Party has done to make things better.
The Tibet Improvement Party will be discussed more a bit later.
 
And, unlike the Falun Gong, was banned after committing terrorism.
I think this TL's version of Jiang Zemin would have approved such a ban though for slightly different reasons as in this TL he was been a long time member of the Kuomintang since at least the 1940s.
 
Last edited:
An assault weapons ban was passed in 1982, which was partly responsible for both the House and Senate flipping to Republicans in the midterm elections.
IMO it's too early to flip the House. That can't happen until the "Solid South" truly breaks down.

OTL, the South remained "Solid" till much later at lower levels. The breakdown of the "Solid South" started at the Presidential level, where "national" issues controlled and the Democrat candidate was usually a non-Southern liberal. It took another generation for the entrenched Democrat incumbents who occupied nearly all local offices and state offices, and who were "safe" conservatives, and older "yellow dog Democrat" voters to pass on. The shift lagged in the US House as well, because Representatives are elected more locally, and many incumbent Southern Democrats were conservative enough that voters stayed with them.

Consider Texas, which voted Republican for President in 1952, 1956, 1972, and 1980-2020, had one Republican Senator since 1961, and two since 1993, but did not elect more Republican than Democrat Representatives until 2004.
 
I'm sorry this is broken, I couldn't see anything
Screenshot_20221001-125434_Chrome.png
 
IMO it's too early to flip the House. That can't happen until the "Solid South" truly breaks down.

OTL, the South remained "Solid" till much later at lower levels. The breakdown of the "Solid South" started at the Presidential level, where "national" issues controlled and the Democrat candidate was usually a non-Southern liberal. It took another generation for the entrenched Democrat incumbents who occupied nearly all local offices and state offices, and who were "safe" conservatives, and older "yellow dog Democrat" voters to pass on. The shift lagged in the US House as well, because Representatives are elected more locally, and many incumbent Southern Democrats were conservative enough that voters stayed with them.

Consider Texas, which voted Republican for President in 1952, 1956, 1972, and 1980-2020, had one Republican Senator since 1961, and two since 1993, but did not elect more Republican than Democrat Representatives until 2004.
I did think about that, but then I thought that having a liberal non-Southerner in the White House would help accelerate things (and the House is just barely Republican). Republicans were able to take control of the House for short periods of time in the 40s and 50s, which were much more difficult years for the party.
I'm sorry this is broken, I couldn't see anythingView attachment 778418
You have no idea how often that happens to me in many TL's here and I just see there is new stuff because I catch a glimps of them in the Forum overview directly...
Happens to me too.
Interesting you chose Laxalt. he was quite buddy-buddy with Ferdinand Marcos Senior if I remember the story correctly. That can't look good if the former still gets ousted in '86.
Ferdinand Marcos is President of the Philippines, I'll get around to the Philippines before too long.
 
八十八, The USSR, 1983-1987
For thirty years, Georgy Malenkov led the Soviet Union. No other Soviet leader would reign as long as he had, though Stalin came very close. He was succeeded by Alexander Shelepin, a hardliner who came closer than anyone else to starting World War III. He led the Soviet Union for just over a year. His successor, Yegor Ligachev, stood in stark contrast with Shelepin. He was a reformist who opposed Shelepin’s brinkmanship. Leaders from Washington to Nanking breathed a sigh of relief. Ligachev was eager to have at least a working relationship with Chiang Ching-kuo and Robert F. Kennedy (and later Paul Laxalt). The Soviet Union, and the entire Eastern Bloc, would go through many changes during his time as leader.

1664624797555.jpeg

(Yegor Ligachev)

Ligachev enacted some political reforms. He admitted that his predecessors had made mistakes. This was not only true of Alexander Shelepin, but also Georgy Malenkov and Josef Stalin. Under Ligachev, there would be more freedom to criticize Soviet policy (though this new freedom was limited). After Shelepin’s administration, it was generally agreed that there should be more checks and balances to make sure that power wasn’t so heavily concentrated in one man. There would also be market reforms to help revitalize the economy. By the mid 1980s, the majority of those at the higher levels of the Soviet government agreed that some sorts of reforms were necessary. The Soviet economy was in a terrible condition. Economic growth had nearly ground to a halt by 1984 and the wars in Iran and Afghanistan were a drain on the treasury.

Ligachev was eager to avoid any sort of confrontation with either the West or China. He hoped to renormalize relations with China, and he would get along well with Chiang Ching-kuo on a personal level. He even tried to renormalize relations with Israel, backtracking on the USSR’s decades long anti-Israel stance. He continued Soviet involvement in the Iranian Civil War, however. Abandoning the Communist regime in Tehran was a non-starter and would lead to Ligachev’s removal from office if tried. Afghanistan was a different story. The Communist leadership there did not have good relations with Moscow and the country was seen as much less important than Iran. In 1986, the US, Saudi Arabia, China, and Pakistan all agreed to end their support of Afghan rebels in exchange for a withdrawal of Soviet military forces from the country.

The increased openness in Moscow trickled down to its satellite states, at least for some of them. East Germany and Albania would continue to be run by hardline Stalinists. The citizens of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, on the other hand, would find themselves having more political and economic freedoms. The governments of both countries would pursue closer relations with the west. Thousands in other Eastern Bloc countries would go on vacation to Hungary and Czechoslovakia for the purpose of crossing the border into Austria or West Germany. In Romania, people protested the regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in 1986, and were subsequently gunned down by the army. Protests erupted and were put down in Poland as well. Seeing the situation in Eastern Europe, by 1987 Yegor Ligachev decided that the reforms had gone too far, and did not pursue reform any further. He was still hated by hardliners within his own government.
 
An interesting update! In OTL Ligachev died in 2021 at the age of 100. I wonder for how long will he rule in the USSR, because not so many people would like to see another 30 year plus rule of the general secretary.
 
An interesting update! In OTL Ligachev died in 2021 at the age of 100. I wonder for how long will he rule in the USSR, because not so many people would like to see another 30 year plus rule of the general secretary.
Let's see if the hardliners will ruin everything
 
By the way, I think that we see the last days of the USSR as the superpower. There are few reasons for this:

1) the USSR is no longer an economic superpower - by the year 1990 it will be already overtaken by Japan and China respectively. Give it a few years and Germany will do it as well.
2) the growing technological gap between the US/West and the USSR is growing bigger and bigger with each day
3) the Eastern Bloc/Warsaw Pact will fall sooner or later - this process cannot be stopped by the Soviets - its already too late
4) the rise of China - with its growing economy/population/global influence/armed forces - more and more countries will simply choose cooperation with Dragon than with Bear.

Still I think that the USSR and the CPSU can survive post - 1991, but it depends if they would be willing to change and to accept the new reality surrounding the USSR. The USSR can still be a very important player on the international stage and with a powerful army but the Cold War is already won by the US/West. My prediction for the 90's is that there would be a similar attitude in the US as in OTL - that is the US is the new hyperpower, this is the end of history, the USSR was neutralized, there is democracy in China and everything will stay this way forever. However the elites in the US will quickly come to realization that the Bear was replaced with the Dragon, and this confrontation against rich, powerful and influential China may be even more difficult than the stuggle against global communism and the USSR in general, but we will see what will happen in the near future.
 
I did think about that, but then I thought that having a liberal non-Southerner in the White House would help accelerate things....
Good point. Wilson was a de facto Southerner, and certainly such on race; Truman was from Missouri, and his mother-in-law refused to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom; Johnson was from Texas; Clinton from Arkansas. The only outright non-Southern liberal Democrat Presidents were FDR and Kennedy (and FDR was silent on civil rights). So President RFK coudl have an effect.

The thing is, the transition of the South was almost geological in its progress: long, slow, broad, perhaps inevitable, but resisted by immense inertia and friction, and therefore hard to accelerate.
(and the House is just barely Republican). Republicans were able to take control of the House for short periods of time in the 40s and 50s, which were much more difficult years for the party.
Actually, 1946-1957 was a good period, with control of two Congresses and others very close. 1958 is when the Republicans got knocked down to stay; they didn't come close again in the House until 1994, and in the Senate until 1980.

Other factors that came in were the increased level of incumbent protection, which protected the Democrats, and the decline of liberal Republicans, especially in the northeast, which offset gains in the South till those gains became really large.

Of course this is an ATL, and some big OTL factors are missing, notably the Korean and Vietnam wars, and Watergate.

And also of course this whole area is really OT for this TL; it can't be entirely ignored, but one can't expect universal coverage in rigorous detail - no human being has the time for that.
 
Top