Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes VI (Do Not Post Current Politics or Political Figures Here)

Status
Not open for further replies.
W3GD1MU.png


It seems poor John B. Anderson is destined to be the third wheel
 
Despite a fairly sizable popular vote win (of three points), Wilson won re-election in 1916 narrowly in the electoral college, with the key state of California being won by him by less than half a percent

Of some note, progressive Republican Hiram Johnson, governor of California at the time, gave a very tepid endorsement of Hughes, without bothering to campaign much for Hughes

In this alternate timeline, Hughes manages to not piss Johnson off as much, and a few more progressives in the state of California vote for Hughes, handing him the election

1916 election ib.png


As a moderate progressive, Hughes doesn't actually govern all that differently from Wilson. The US still enters the war, Hughes supports something fairly similar to OTL's League of Nations (he had supported the OTL one) with the similar public backlash that ensued, the post-world war economy still sees a decline, and so on. The 1920 election is thus dominated by a reaction to the President, and to an extent the progressive era reform politics in general

Hughes runs for re-election, this time with a new VP candidate since Marshall died before the election. And the Democrats nominate conservative Maryland Attorney General Albert Ritchie, with Eugene Foss as his running mate. With the Democrats taking a more conservative stance in order to take advantage of public opinion, while Hughes sticks with his moderate progressivism and support for the League of Nations while also being dragged down by the economic situation, the Democrats are able to win a landslide

1920 election ib.png
 
Despite a fairly sizable popular vote win (of three points), Wilson won re-election in 1916 narrowly in the electoral college, with the key state of California being won by him by less than half a percent

Of some note, progressive Republican Hiram Johnson, governor of California at the time, gave a very tepid endorsement of Hughes, without bothering to campaign much for Hughes

In this alternate timeline, Hughes manages to not piss Johnson off as much, and a few more progressives in the state of California vote for Hughes, handing him the election

View attachment 707096

As a moderate progressive, Hughes doesn't actually govern all that differently from Wilson. The US still enters the war, Hughes supports something fairly similar to OTL's League of Nations (he had supported the OTL one) with the similar public backlash that ensued, the post-world war economy still sees a decline, and so on. The 1920 election is thus dominated by a reaction to the President, and to an extent the progressive era reform politics in general

Hughes runs for re-election, this time with a new VP candidate since Marshall died before the election. And the Democrats nominate conservative Maryland Attorney General Albert Ritchie, with Eugene Foss as his running mate. With the Democrats taking a more conservative stance in order to take advantage of public opinion, while Hughes sticks with his moderate progressivism and support for the League of Nations while also being dragged down by the economic situation, the Democrats are able to win a landslide

View attachment 707097
This is the one time where the electoral college is doing the right thing. Out with Woodrow Wilson.
 
Despite a fairly sizable popular vote win (of three points), Wilson won re-election in 1916 narrowly in the electoral college, with the key state of California being won by him by less than half a percent

Of some note, progressive Republican Hiram Johnson, governor of California at the time, gave a very tepid endorsement of Hughes, without bothering to campaign much for Hughes

In this alternate timeline, Hughes manages to not piss Johnson off as much, and a few more progressives in the state of California vote for Hughes, handing him the election

View attachment 707096

As a moderate progressive, Hughes doesn't actually govern all that differently from Wilson. The US still enters the war, Hughes supports something fairly similar to OTL's League of Nations (he had supported the OTL one) with the similar public backlash that ensued, the post-world war economy still sees a decline, and so on. The 1920 election is thus dominated by a reaction to the President, and to an extent the progressive era reform politics in general

Hughes runs for re-election, this time with a new VP candidate since Marshall died before the election. And the Democrats nominate conservative Maryland Attorney General Albert Ritchie, with Eugene Foss as his running mate. With the Democrats taking a more conservative stance in order to take advantage of public opinion, while Hughes sticks with his moderate progressivism and support for the League of Nations while also being dragged down by the economic situation, the Democrats are able to win a landslide

View attachment 707097
Well done boxes, and definitely an underused electoral POD as well.
 
So noticed your little series. Why are the candidates nearly all female. You trying to get a woke reward?? Like dominatrix's?? Seems like a good dose of misandry and pretty daft....ugh
Hi. I apologize for not responding to this earlier but yes quite a few of my candidates are women. I'm not necessarily trying to do it on purpose, however in this timeline after having several female Presidents, women have been strongly encouraged to run for office. Also, in this timeline there are more women than men in the United State's population (about 54%). Democrats and Republicans both realized that in order to turn out voters, they needed to recruit candidates as diverse as the electorate. So no, I'm not trying to win an award for wokeness. This is just how my timeline works.
 
Well done boxes, and definitely an underused electoral POD as well.
Thanks! And yeah, I'm kind of surprised it hasn't been used a bit more

So, anyone fancy creating an infobox for an Award for Wokeness? 😋

(From the world of this)

medal of vision's freeing distinction ib.png


The "Medal of Vision's Freeing Distinction" was the highest medal within the True Wide Awakes (Vera Feichang Duisigh), awarded to the most "awakened" members of the organization. Of those who were awarded the medal, those awarded it before the 1919 banning of the organization achieved the medal for conventional service to the goals of the organization. The reasons for awarding in the case of those between 1919 and 1960 are less clear and evidential, with more hints of ̞̣̩̖͈̼̘̝̽ͮ̃͌ ̵̢̘̤̭͉͎̰ͦ̔̑̍ͨ̈́̌ͅ ̛͛̾͌̑ͮ͒̉̎͏͙͍ ̘̼̠͙͈͚ͧͣ̀̒̏̆́̇ͩ̕͢ ̼̹͉͓̑ͩ́͠ ̵̻̘͈͉͕̰̱͙͓̆̐̄͛̅ͧ͑ͥ ̻̥̺͔͉̙̫̙̓̐̓́ ̶̵̬̲̮̝̳̯͎̙̏̄̽ ̘̠̜̪͕ͥͦ͐̐ͅ ̆ͮ͐͏̢̤̝̳̬̩͉ ̴̛͓̳̱͚̙̤̩ͫ̎͗ͭͫ̐̋̆ ̟̹̽͒͌̈́̄͆̊ ̸͓͔̻̤̻̰̌̈́͝ͅ ̴̞͖̻̱̬͍͎̝̥ͧ̚̕ ̈́̔ͩͬ͐̊͆̚͏̘̖̩̀ ͉͕̯̙̳̊ͧ̏͂͊͢ ͉̰̥̅ͨ̐ ̛̫̯͓̯͚͔͖̘͋̂ͤͩ͑ͯ̑ ̯͚̲̪̬̝̦̪ͧͪͫ͂ͭ̓͠ ̶͕͚̱̈̈ͩ̿̕͘. For the few awarded after 1960,͔̲̭̘͎̘̯ͪ̃ͣ̋̾ͯ̈́ͣ̀̕ͅ ̳̻͎͖̼̯̫̒̅͞ ̈ͤ́̇̉̅̃̇̆͏̶̧͎̥̭͇͎̳̭̜ ͮͦ̽͏̡͔̩ͅ ͖̋ͬ̏ͨ͛ͬ ͖̼̬̭͓͚͓̹̈́̀̌ͥͨ͜ ̥͖̦̎̽ͣ̏̆̐̈͛ ̾̔͗̈́̍̾ͭ̅҉̵̶̰̯̦͉̗̺ ͇ͫ̈͋̄͛̈ͭ̎͝ ͖̳̙͇͓̫̦̊̈̋ ̢̯̦̼͈͚ͨ̎͛̀̚ ͣ̓̐̒͛̔̔ͯ̃͏̣̮ ͆ͣ͗̑͑̓̌̕͏͚̩̗̺̫͞ ̷̘̦͓̠̊̉ͣ̉͊̋͡ ̛͚̠̈́ͯ̌͂̒ͨ͐ͮ̚̕ ̹̯̠̜̤̪̈̄́̏̊̍̐͜͟ ̜̱̗͙̜͉̄̉ͬ͒͗̇̀ ̴̧͎̖͇̰̘̆̅̑͌͢ ̧ͤ͗̑͂ͯ̚҉̲͍̺̥̗̣̳ ̨̨͇̻̤̩̮̜̘̏ͬ͞ ̛̇ͣͮ͊̆̇̋̔̍͏̖̩͈ ̷͖̳̤̖̐ͮ́̅ͧ̌ ̶͉͓̩̙͚̾̏̍͐ͭ̿̊͗͒͡ ̷̱͎̜̪ͤ̄̎ ̖̦͔̞̖͚ͫ͆́ ̨̯̞̤̤͖͕̞ͪ̊̆̑̈̂̑ ͍̥͇̲̣̉ͧ͒͞ ̙̊̾ͧͯ̌ ̛̹̱̜͈͕̣ͫͥ̓ ̧̹͉̪̻̈́͋͟ ͈̺̉̆͂ͮͨ̍ͪ̀͢ ̴̨̟̟̽̓̈́̈́͝ͅ ̸̮͙͚͎̮̞̹̏̏ͅ ̛̣̜̹͓̊͒̓̇̈́̎͠ͅ ̙̳̼͈̩̯͉ͬ̆ͪͮ͑͘ͅ ̮̟̙͓̭̤ͮ̍̊̍͗ ̣͖͕̿́ͥͯ͒̇̈́̽́͟ ̟̳͈̗̹̬̗͆̀ͅ ̦̙̬̿̓ ͍͈̹͓̓ͣ̅̋̇͜͜͝ ͔̮͕̘̤̺̝͔̊̊́̒ ̸̥̺̺̤̱̻ͬ̆̄͝ ͓̙̯̥͓̗͛ͭ ̯̣͚̹̜̜͚͔ͯ̔͊͛̍́ ̞̣̩̖͈̼̘̝̽ͮ̃͌ ̵̢̘̤̭͉͎̰ͦ̔̑̍ͨ̈́̌ͅ ̛͛̾͌̑ͮ͒̉̎͏͙͍ ̘̼̠͙͈͚ͧͣ̀̒̏̆́̇ͩ̕͢ ̼̹͉͓̑ͩ́͠ ̵̻̘͈͉͕̰̱͙͓̆̐̄͛̅ͧ͑ͥ ̻̥̺͔͉̙̫̙̓̐̓́ ̶̵̬̲̮̝̳̯͎̙̏̄̽ ̘̠̜̪͕ͥͦ͐̐ͅ ̆ͮ͐͏̢̤̝̳̬̩͉ ̴̛͓̳̱͚̙̤̩ͫ̎͗ͭͫ̐̋̆ ̟̹̽͒͌̈́̄͆̊ ̸͓͔̻̤̻̰̌̈́͝ͅ ̴̞͖̻̱̬͍͎̝̥ͧ̚̕ ̈́̔ͩͬ͐̊͆̚͏̘̖̩̀ ͉͕̯̙̳̊ͧ̏͂͊͢ ͉̰̥̅ͨ̐ ̛̫̯͓̯͚͔͖̘͋̂ͤͩ͑ͯ̑ ̯͚̲̪̬̝̦̪ͧͪͫ͂ͭ̓͠ ̶͕͚̱̈̈ͩ̿̕͘ ̵̨̰̙̤͓̬̆̐̏͂̈͘ ̵̢͔̰̲̫̘̩̞́̇͐͆̑̾ͧ̚ ̺̟̲͙ͨ͌̍ͭ́͠ ̧̥̩̲͓̻̻̓͂ͧ͘ ̶͎͐͂͌̐́ ̢̛̙̹̿̓̑ ̹̝͔̞͚ͥ̔̍ͦ̓ ͓̘̣̱ͦ̆ͥ͛ ͗ͫ͌ͧ͂͝҉͈̙͈̩̪ͅ ̼̱͓̣̩̫̫͙̏̍ͣͯ̀ ̶̙͔̩̙̠͚͙̖͌ͤ͗ͫ ̸̶̣̱̮̥̓͗ͩ̚ ̵̜̍̃ͯ ̵̸ͤͭ͂͋ͭ̔͏̹̹̮͍̲̝ͅ ̶̗̰͖͖̣ͪͭ̒̿̉ͣ̌͞ ̨̭͍̮̠́̚͝͞ ̵̡̞̪͔̏̊ͤ͒̆̍ͯ̀͘ ̴̪̼̜̠ͭͭ͝ ̴̵̣͈̥̩͎̲̞̥ͣ̎̄̈̓ͨ̏́ ̗͔͇̤̓̀́̐ ̴̜̰ͤͪ̉ͨ̌̏͞ͅ ͓̭͇̹͉͔͙̅̊̓ͪ͝ ̧͔͉̩̩̙͔͋̿ͥ̕ ̷̡̛̥̜̺͔̜̻̼ͥͩ͆ͬͅ ̴̡̪͉ͣ̓̇ͮ ͣ̉ͫͨͯ͆ͯͥ͡҉̲̞͕̳̹ ́ͮ̓̔ͪͭ͏̶̤̞̙͔̰̯͖͓ ̵ͫ̒̌̌̆͏͍̺̣̭̘̝̗̕ ̜̬͓̯̭̼̣̭́ͯ͂͒̈́͂ͨ͠ ̷̹̝̄̍͛ͩ ̠̞͋̈͐̚ ̠͒ͣ͌ͤ̂͗͒́͝͡ ̩ͫͣ̏̃ͭ͒͐̿ ̵̢̟͈͉ͧ̍̇̿̊ ̴̤̳͖͊ͮͨ͂͑͌̊̚͢ ̷̞̪͈̺̬ͧ̄̉̆̍́ͤ͟ ̸̝ͯ͋́̄͛̓̍͞͠ ̵̡͔̞̥͖ͭͫ͜ͅ ̶̧̡̠͔̞͇̙̀ͅ ͕̔̀̐ ͥ͒ͭ͌͋ͤͪ̄͗͏̧͉̩̬̙͇̱͡ ̨̨̛̪͓̘̲̤̙̯̼̉ ̷̹͍͙͕̥̦͒ͣ̿ͅ ̶͖̠̙̞͉̺ͬ̌ͬ̆́̋͒ͅ ̡̱̳̺̐͊̓̀̐̎̒͘͜ ̓͋ͧ̋̒̾́͏̲̖̮ ̞̹̓͋̐̌̓̀͟͞ ̯͈̮̹̞͎̼̭̃̀̊ͯ̽̚ ͓̻̲̓͐̔̎̀ͫ̚ ͓̻̎͌̂̆ͭ̚͜ ̞̭̘̠̬̺͚̩͇̇̔͌͗ ͛̂ͥ̽͌ͭͬ҉͚͔̝͓͔͚͚͖͓ ͔͈̗̥̪̟̍͆̀̉̈ͦ́ ̷̰͚̪͎̦ͥ͌ͭ̇͗̽̽͠ ̬̜̯̮̼̙̱͚̭̓́͊͢͞ ̅ͪͬ̌̿̀҉̯̣̬ͅ ̛̲͖̼̥̊̔̽ͨ̑͒̓ͣ̎́͢ͅ ̤̠͚̖̍͑͂͑̈́̈̉̌ ̟̤̝̼̙͎̳̖͂ͥ̆̃ͥ̂̒̀̚ ̶̠͉͖̳̯̱͉̗̩ͫͪͥ ̸̫͖̝͙̖̰̌̓ͨ͐̔̍ͅ ̩̝̩͕̦͐̂ͩ̔ ͙̪͕̠̠̖ͪͥͮ̈ͦ́̑ͥ͜ ͔̩͕̟͔̓̒ͅ ̢̛ͫ͏̖̯͉̝̫̠͖͚ ̷̡͚̠̪̫̯̗͚̀̿͊ ̷̗̮͍͍͂ ͙̜͉̲͙̝̣͓̪͒̽ͦ̌͋ ̹̤̊͊ͭͬͬͨͬͫ ̵̺̪̤̮ͬͩ́ ̇̾ͩͫͥ͋͏̛̰̥͓͍͇̤̞̣ ̛̝̩̫̗͓̲ͤ͊̒̔̋̌̌ ̧͙͈̼̎͋̾̐̈́͂̓̀͠ ̦͓̩ͣͤͮ̆̾̇̓̀͝ ̷̝̻̗̠̜̫͇̦͖ͦ͆̈ ͈̞̳̤̗͍͖̪͈ͣ̉̅ͮ͜ ̏̆͆ͯͮͧͬ͏̞̹̹̮́ ̵̻̗ͣ̋̇̒͟͠ ̬͈̜̟̜̻͑͆͒͌͑ ͉̘̭̲͈͗̽͊̋ͧ͢͜ ̨̮̲̭̞̊̇͝͞ ̷̢̪̼͉̺̮͎͉̣ͤ͑̽͆̑ ̍ͥ̿͏̢͓͈͚̻̟̝͉͓ ̵̷̬̝̞̻ͫ̚ ̷̯̟͍̠̫ͫͥ͑ͤ̓͘ ̸̴͇̼̬̘̱ͬ̂ͯ ̩̖̰̳̲͖͎̖̊ͤ̈́͋ͩ̉͞ ̡̅ͨ͑ͬ̈́̾̄̒҉͓͝ ͎̌̍ͬ͢ ̷̛̯͖̰͈̮͓͖͐͋͟ ̸̳̬̅̾̐͋͟ ͚̫̗͖͓͔̹̎͊ͯ͒ͧ̅ͬ͌ ̶̻̣̣͓̩͚̺̮̑̋̿͗͌̊̿̒̕͜ͅ ̴͓̻̪̣͈͆̔̋ͭ ̯̘ͯͪ̍ ̨̝̯͍̫̼̣͍̦̭̔͑͐̾ ̟̠̖̦̈ͬ̀ ̛̰ͧ̏ͫͥ̃̚͘ ̸͓̺͇͚̰̋ͩ̈́̌̓͜ ̙̰͓͍̟ͨ̐ͦ̔͑̓̒̐̀̕ ͙͍̍̂ͫ͊ͥ̔̚ͅ ͓͎͈̃ͅ ̐̍̉̿̐ͬͭ͝҉̺͔͝ ̢͙̤͚̤̄͑͌͛ͭ̒̽̆͞ͅ ̩̰̺̻̣͎̝͔͐͊̓ ̖͉̺̞̦̱͈ͥ ̸̖̖̖̱͔̙̖ͩ̐̔̈̀ͥ̀͡ ̛̛̟̪͕̪̱͍͉̈͌̑͘ ̮̗̩̭͑͐̇͆͟ ͎͎̭̻̋͊̓̀̀͟ ̯̞͌͞ ̷̧̱͛̒ͪ́̄ͬ̓͒ ̲̯̬̌̓͐́͠ ̶̡̜̰͔̆̍̈́ͣ͠ ̸̴̸̤̤̞̼̗͚̖͍̲́̈́ͭ̀̍ͮ̋ͬ ̡͍͚̹̳̮̭̲̼͌̔̎̄ͭ̽ ̺̌͆ͣ̋ͦ̎̈́͟ ̨̥̥̭̱̼̊ͬ̈́ͮ̐̒̿͡ͅ ̷͖̜̳͕ͥ̎ͦ̊͛͋̍̽̚ ̴̢̪̭ͩ ̟̯͚̲̂ͧ̊̏ͨ͑̓͡͞ ̰̭̉̈́̅ͤͅͅ ͉͖͉ͦ̃̅ͦ̾̓̇ͮ͝ ̢̠̟͕ͪ̈́ ̓͗̌̌̒̓̽҉̢͓͇̥̲̞̱̀ ̺̰̲͍̘̱̯̤̞̈̽ ̛͈͉̹̙̙̠͚̆̃̇ͨ͜ ̛̮̃ͥͪ͛̾̀͊̚͜͢ͅ ̬ͫͤͮ̏̓͠ ̷̷̦͙̯̲̲̱̩̂ͦͭ͌̊̑ͯ̈́̾ ̢͇͉̾̃ͤ ̥͕̺͚̜̫ͥ̃͆ͨ̈́͗̐̓ ̈̽̈́ͣͩͮͮ̒͏̹̙͔́͡ ̠͖̭͔̦̻͍̟͛̓ͪͮ̈̔ ̷̼̼̘̣ͧͦ̏ͯͣ͞ ͊͒ͣ̚͟͏̲̘ ̨̛̬̻̪͋̐̓̑ͬ͝ ̷͉͓͇̇͒̂ͮ̄ ̵̺͙̯̤́̿ ̘͓̥͙͔͊̇͑̂̔ͯͥ̃̀͡ ̨̝ͦ̎ ̷̵̞̬̤̬͍̊͛͋
 
"We may have nuked the Russians and gotten a taste of some soviet goodies ourselves, but at least we can hold an election with half the country...
r-right?

...
G-guys?"
Anonymous American after the end of the Six Hours War and announcement of the Ceasefire of Lisbon, sometime in November 1968.

U3OPlBz.png
How the hell did LA, Chicago, Boston, Houston, D.C., and New York survive?
 

Deleted member 169412

Who's that Jaques II character? And did the original French revolution(the one in XVIII century), Napoleonic wars, Restoration etc. all happen ITTL or was France a monarchy through all this time?
The whole thing was a shitpost that I came up with because I was bored in my history class at college, was studying the Iranian Revolution and wondered how something like that could happen in the West. I only picked France because Marcel Lefebvre was the first fundamentalist religious leader who would have been a contemporary of the Ayatollah that came into my mind. If I'd thought of Pat Robertson first, I'd have done a "Christian Republic of America" where America becomes a dominionist theocracy.

Jacques II was the legitimist claimant to the French throne during the 60's and 70's. I choose to keep him alive for the duration of the "French Revolution" (OTL he died in 1976) because he's an analogue of Pahlavi.

Speaking of France and revolution:
france 1.PNG

france 2.PNG

france 3.PNG

Louis XVI is given a brain transplant in this one, and manages to democratise France somewhat, staving off the French Revolution. The important word here is "somewhat". France sets itself on a liberal course and takes some inspiration from the US (only some, mind you; concepts like a republic and complete freedom of religion are still alien to France, even if Louis does bring back the Edict of Nantes). The new France is markedly more pro-market and bourgeois, and basically looks like the sort of France the more moderate revolutionaries wanted.

Karl Marx's ideas are popular in France for the same reasons they were OTL, and in response to this a very socially conservative movernment begins to spring up, especially in rural France. (TTL's France is more decentralised, and the King has built himself up a base of support in Occitania, Brittany and the Vendée). The Mouvement National Chrétien is very agrarian, very Christian, and very, very reactionary. As such, the royals start aligning themselves with them. In the 1950's, France ends up fighting a war with the UK over colonies in Africa, and "wins". I say "wins" because France is not in good shape after the war, and this leads millions of Frenchmen to do what would have been unthinkable a few years ago and vote Communist.

Josias Legault, leader of the Communist Party, is appointed Prime Minister, and as his first act puts forward a bill that would introduce price controls on wheat. This goes down incredibly badly with both the liberals and the King's rural supporters, but goes down well with urban working-class people. When the King vetoes it, closes Parliament, and, for good measure, does all this on a public holiday, all hell breaks loose. After the King outright refuses to negotiate with Legault, riots break out across the country. On Boxing Day, Legault's supporters break into the Chamber of Deputies, install Legault as Speaker, and begin drafting a new constitution. By 6th January, the King has "decided to visit Saint-Domingue", the Chamber of Deputies has abolished the monarchy, and France has crossed the point of no return.

Saint-Domingue is more populous than OTL Haiti (many of the King's wealthier supporters fled there after the St Stephen's Day riot, and the French government tried to encourage French settlement there, in the same way they did OTL in Algeria) and isn't exactly a pariah state (people need sugar, after all) but isn't exactly seen favourably by the world at large either. This is partially due to its views on race, which are incredibly colonial, and partially due to its extreme levels of inequality. Unfortunately for Haiti, sixty years of exile have only radicalised the French exiles in Saint-Domingue, and talk of a violent revolution and "the martyr Jean-Jacques Dessalines" grows by the day. No matter what happens, many people only see misery in Haiti's future.
 
Remember Remember the Fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot
I see no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot

SNIP

Awesome infobox, really well done.

That being said, I think it slightly overexaggerates the impact of such an attempted - and most importantly failed coup. The Queen being head of the Armed Forces would 100% never back such a coup attempt, ever - not unless Mintoff was legitimately a Soviet spy and honestly, even then I doubt it, he'd just be arrested. So why the Monarchy is then dissolved after the event seems very bizarre and a big exaggeration. The Monarchy would be required to defeat the coup too, given that the British Armed Forces are loyal to the Queen and not the people, and its leadership and officers, and soldiers, during the period were conservative during the period - meaning they couldn't shoulder any blame.

Also, I'm not sure why an attempted coup in London, particularly followed by a massive Labour victory, would cause an upsurge in Northern Irish violence unless the IRA decided they could bully Labour into agreeing a deal - though I find this unlikely given that such violence would have made it increasingly harder for Labour to justify negotiating separation for Northern Ireland, a more left-wing and powerful Labour Government may have been more open to - even if they'd never have agreed to it without significant demands. Same goes for the global colonial uprisings that are mentioned - not sure why given by 1969 Britain had given away almost all of its colonies the ones that were left, largely just islands that were pro-British anyway, would devolve into violence when the situation had not actually changed, if anything for the better.

Anyway, cool graphic - part of a timeline or?
 
Awesome infobox, really well done.

That being said, I think it slightly overexaggerates the impact of such an attempted - and most importantly failed coup. The Queen being head of the Armed Forces would 100% never back such a coup attempt, ever - not unless Mintoff was legitimately a Soviet spy and honestly, even then I doubt it, he'd just be arrested. So why the Monarchy is then dissolved after the event seems very bizarre and a big exaggeration. The Monarchy would be required to defeat the coup too, given that the British Armed Forces are loyal to the Queen and not the people, and its leadership and officers, and soldiers, during the period were conservative during the period - meaning they couldn't shoulder any blame.

Also, I'm not sure why an attempted coup in London, particularly followed by a massive Labour victory, would cause an upsurge in Northern Irish violence unless the IRA decided they could bully Labour into agreeing a deal - though I find this unlikely given that such violence would have made it increasingly harder for Labour to justify negotiating separation for Northern Ireland, a more left-wing and powerful Labour Government may have been more open to - even if they'd never have agreed to it without significant demands. Same goes for the global colonial uprisings that are mentioned - not sure why given by 1969 Britain had given away almost all of its colonies the ones that were left, largely just islands that were pro-British anyway, would devolve into violence when the situation had not actually changed, if anything for the better.

Anyway, cool graphic - part of a timeline or?
Thank you very much for the feedback! The Infobox isn't part of a timeline (at least not yet), more stemmed from an idea that sprung to mind after re-watching A Very British Coup.

In terms of the monarchy, none of the Royal Family actually backs the coup attempt. However, the DOR publicly offers Lord Mountbatten the position of Head of the Caretaker administration they intend to impose, a measure that had been attempted by Cecil King OTL in 1968 and a primary reason for Mountbatten's association with coup attempts). This, coupled with the revelation that Mountbatten had been in correspondence with the conspirators prior (even if he had flat out rejected their attempt as treason), polarises public opinion of the Monarchy. In spite of the fact little to no evidence exists that Mountbatten, or any members of the Royal Family, endorsed or participated in the attempt, many now associate the Monarchy with the deeply unpopular coup. A perception of the monarchy as an archaic anti-democratic institution emerges amongst a significant portion of an increasingly disillusioned populace, ultimately creating a significant swell of support for the constitutional reforms Mintoff (and his fierce base of leftist supporters within Labour) spearheads. These reforms, akin to those carried out by the Swedish government in the 70s, increasingly marginalize and reduce the powers and influence of the Monarchy, eventually culminating in the very controversial abolition act in 1981.

In terms of Northern Ireland, just as OTL the conflict in Northern Ireland had begun under a Labour government, as the civil rights movement becomes violent with significant opposition from Protestant Unionists. Although it can be said that Mintoff and many members of the flourishing Labour left are somewhat sympathetic to the cause of the IRA, his tendency to act rather authoritarian has lead to increasing political violence nationwide, not just NI. Industrial action, protests and civil disturbances have lead to Mintoff utilising legislation that is rather draconian in many aspects. This effectively results in a cycle of political violence across the UK.

I should have probably made this clearer but the Overseas Territories refer to regions such as Malta, Gibraltar, Channel Islands etc, that have been integrated into the United Kingdom. The unrest in these areas is not so much anti-Colonial, but rather part of a general uptick in political discontent during the Mintoff years.
 
Last edited:
1641138371955.png

The 1985 Czechoslovak parliamentary election was held on the 29th September 1985 to elect the 300 members of the National Assembly, the unicameral federal parliament of Czechoslovakia. The election was called almost 6 months ahead of schedule by Prime Minister Václav Havel, and was held on the same day as the 1985 Czechoslovak presidential election, which saw the landslide re-election of Alexander Dubček to a second five-year term.

Initially the ČSSD, still led by Pavel Bergmann (who had claimed the party’s popular vote victory in 1982), had hoped that Dubček’s popularity with the public would allow them to improve their electoral standing due to his coattails. This was not to be, however, since Bergmann and Dubček had a fairly fractious relationship and many voters still considered Bergmann to be too extremist.

Furthermore, despite the difficult electoral situation in which he had come to power, Havel had proven very popular. His government softened the monetarism of the Petránek government to satisfy public opposition to it, but he did not renationalize the industries that had been privatized, instead working to increase their accountability with new reforms and legislation to provide oversight to them, and did not do as much to marginalize trade unions as other governments that practiced monetarism.

In foreign affairs, Havel was an adamant anti-Communist, but after Mikhail Gorbachev became the USSR’s President the two men found much common ground, and with his mostly positive relationships with the Thatcher, Reagan and Kohl governments as both an advocate for (most of) their economic attitudes and an opponent of the traditional attitudes of the Eastern Bloc, Havel started to secure for himself an image as a conciliatory presence in world politics.

Havel could also boast a major domestic constitutional reform which had avoided stirring up much controversy: he fulfilled the desires of the HMS by giving Moravia and Silesia its own national council. This allowed him to effectively swallow up the Moravian nationalist movement within the OLS as well as definitively ending the idea of autonomism as a leftist principle in Czechoslovakia.

Consequently, while Bergmann did run an aggressive campaign, Havel and the OSL were always the favourites in the 1985 election, and by the week before the election the main point of discussion had become whether an OLS majority government was possible. While this did not come true, the election did see the OLS win 145 seats, just 6 short of an overall majority, the best ever result for any party in a Czechoslovak election.

Most of the other parties were badly fractured by the OLS’s success, with the ČSSD remaining the main opposition party but dropping to just 73 seats, its worst showing since 1948. The ČSL fared even worse, falling to just 47 seats having been clearly supplanted by the OLS as the main party of the Czechoslovak centre-right. Meanwhile, the DLS, now led by Václav Klaus, continued to decline, which proved a contributing factor to Klaus’s decision during the 1985-89 term to wind up the party and join the government to push the OLS to the right from within. The ČSNS was the only party to gain seats besides the OLS having served as its main coalition partner, while the SNS and Coexistence both had their seats halved due to the less fractious situation of the main parties.

The second Havel government was formed with the continued support of the OLS, ČSNS and Coexistence, with the ČSL entering government rather than merely supporting it. This produced a government with a two-thirds majority, by far the biggest since the ‘Czechoslovak coalition’ dissolved in the 1950s. Despite this, the next four years would prove quite fractious for Havel and his supporters as he pursued more controversial politics and fault lines in the OLS started to emerge.
 
World of the Continued United Front

* Second Sino-Japanese War
* Asia after the Second Sino-Japanese War, around 1940
* Chinese Leaders, 20s and 30s
*
Sino-Soviet Relations, 1930s to 1950s
* Japan in the 1930 and 1940s, and Pacific Rim Diplomacy in the 1940s
* United States Politics, to 1960
* Indochina and the Second Indochina War
*
Indonesia, 1965 to 1989
* Central America, 1989-1990
* Russia, 1990s and 2000s
* Chinese Politics, 1990s
* Chinese Domestic Affairs and International Relations after the First Cold War
* Himalayan Crisis, 2005-2006
* Aftermath of the Himalayan Crisis
* Pakistan, late 2000s
* LGBT Rights in China (and elsewhere), to 2010

Japan in the 1930 and 1940s, and Pacific Rim Diplomacy in the 1940s

Going into the Second Sino-Japanese War, the Japanese military and general public had badly underestimated Chinese unity and fighting ability. With the initial halting of the Japanese offensive into Manchuria, Japanese military propaganda guaranteed that their forces would reclaim the initiative and ultimately gain victory. Military propaganda could only go so far, however. The Soviet entrance into the war was a severe blow to Japanese morale, and the Sino-Soviet offensive that pushed the Japanese forces off Mainland Asia altogether was the last straw. By then, sizable dissent and pro-peace sentiment had arisen among the general public and among certain factions in the military, with the belief that military leadership had too much power in shaping policy and had made the whole country suffer due to its poor judgement. A series of protests broke out, and the legislature (which had increasingly been sidelined by the military as the war went on) demanded increased authority over the military. Military leadership was poised to crack down on this opposition, but dissent broke out within the ranks of the military, and in May of 1934, certain elements in the military staged a pro-peace coup

The new "Provisional Government of the Empire of Japan" attained armistice with the Chinese and Soviets, and called a quick election for an assembly to take legislative power and determine reforms, with intent to draw up a new constitution

That election saw a surge in support for the center-left to left wing, with the left having seen a solid boost due to a surge in anti-militaristic sentiment and upset over economic issues. The Rikken Minseito/'Constitutional Democratic Party', a center-left party and one of the big two parties in prior elections, ended up the largest party, but saw a drop in support, as did the Rikken Seiyukai/'Association of Friends of Constitutional Government', the right wing party that had held the majority and been the other of the big two parties. The surge in support for the left was instead seen among a few 'outsider' parties, being the Shakai Taishuto/'Social Mass Party', the Shakai Minshuto/'Social Democratic Party', and the Nihon Kyosan-to/'Japanese Communist Party'. Despite the Rikken Minseito making up the largest party on the left, those three 'outsider' parties combined outnumbered the Rikken Minseito, and the coalition that was eventually formed was led by Abe Isoo of the Shakai Taishuto as Prime Minister, as part of the shift away from the estalishment center-left

Despite the rise in support for the left, the traditional right remained a force, and furthermore, the election saw the rise of two further right and fascist parties, being the Tohokai/'Society of the East' and the Kokumin Domei/'National Citizens Alliance'. There remained a sizable chunk of the country that thought the war should have been continued and that opposed the armistice



The new government took a harsh hit in public approval with the signing of the Treaty of Vladivostok, officially ending the war with China and the Soviets. The idea of peace was fairly popular, but the new government had misjudged the willingness of the public to accept the costs of peace

At the time of the armistice, Japan had been ejected from the Asian mainland and south Sakhalin, but still held Taiwan and the Kuril Islands. Since Japan still had a strong navy, theoretically it could have defended the islands it held and possibly even managed to take Sakhalin. The Sino-Soviet alliance would have been able to defeat a landing on the mainland of Asia, however, and while the Chinese had no navy to speak of and the Soviet navy was rather outmatched by the Japanese, the new Japanese government reckoned that the Sino-Soviet alliance could have built up a navy to challenge the Japanese navy if no peace was achieved. And the Sino-Soviets were quite insistent that Taiwan and the Kurils be handed over to China and the Soviets respectively, as an alternative to demanding harsh reparations for the Japanese aggression and war crimes in the war

The Japanese government accepted that treaty offer, seeing little point in continuing the state of war. But it ended up being a deeply unpopular thing among the Japanese public. The governing coalition had started off reasonably popular due to some of its reforms, but saw a sharp decline in popularity after the signing of the treaty and the handover of Taiwan and the Kurils. It was deeply unpopular to hand over territory that Japan still held at the end of the war. Furthermore, the more peaceful orientation of the coalition led to some difficulties, as the shift from military production to domestic production caused some disruptions. The few years after the signing of the treaty saw a rise in fascist paramilitaries and public support for them, as well as increasing violence, complaints from the military, and attempts by the government to reverse its decline in support - but to little effect

By 1938, opposition forces had grown strong and organized, and sizable dissent among the armed forces had arisen. When the coup to overthrow the elected government was initiated, it was able to succeed and quickly take control of the country



The new military government set out to purge the leftists and unions, undo various reforms passed in the last few years, and embark on a major expansion of military spending, waiting for the chance at revenge

With the fall of France to the Germans in 1940, the Japanese saw a potential chance. France went from one of the world's great powers to being a defeated puppet state of a country that had essentially no overseas power projection ability. Japan saw an opportunity, then, in French Indochina, and sent a force to occupy the territory. With a foothold on mainland Asia, Japan was thus able to launch an invasion of mainland China

With China having spent the last few years building up industry and armed forces, and with the supply lines from Japan-proper being longer, the Third Sino-Japanese War actually went rather worse for Japan than the Second war had. The expectations of the military government hadn't quite matched the reality of the situation, and attempts to attain more resources by attempting to occupy British and Dutch colonies in Southeast Asia left Japan in a particularly bad situation

Japan was pushed back on land (with China managing to occupy northern Indochina by the end of the war), and was defeated at sea by the British and later American navies. Japan was clearly defeated again, this time with some of its enemies having pretty sizable navies, and facing a tough blockade, surrendered (despite some sizable opposition within the armed forces). By the nature of the 'western allies' being the ones with navies, and with the sideshow nature of the Pacific Theater meaning that the peace conferences between the allies that decided the postwar borders in Europe didn't really touch much on the Pacific side of things, Japan's fate was largely decided by the western allies

The United States was more lenient on Japan than Germany, since the American public had entered the war over German U-Boat attacks and hadn't had any incidents to generate strong feelings against the Japanese in the same way, merely getting involved in the Pacific due to the Japanese state of war with its allies the British. So the Americans forced a restoration of democratic government, a new constitution with greater protections of rights, and a military more beholden to the civilian government, but Japan was allowed to retain its monarchy, and while some particularly egregious instigators of human rights abuses in the Second and Third Sino-Japanese Wars, and the military government's violence against its own countrypeople, were held accountable, there was no policy in Japan as intense as German Denazification, and Japan was not required to pay reparations. The United States at the time was far more concerned with occurrences in Europe, with the rise of tensions with the USSR, but concerns had been growing about communist China as well (despite its rocky relations with the Soviets), and the Americans saw Japan as a potentially useful associate in the region. Since the Second World War, Japan has had something of a conservative and militaristic lean, but has remained a democracy and avoided the issues of the past, growing fairly prosperous with its partnership with the United States

____________________________________________________________

The Third Sino-Japanese War, as part of the Second World War, ended in the awkward situation of China occupying the northern half of Indochina, a territory it had acquired from the fascist Japanese who themselves had acquired it from the fascist French puppet to the Germans but that was now claimed by the restored free and democratic (well, in Europe at least) French Republic. Furthermore, China had come to occupy Hong Kong after it was occupied by the Japanese during the war. This was one of a few areas where tensions between the western and eastern allies saw significant increase after the war's end

Within the Chinese leadership, some wished to prop up a free Indochinese government in the territories it held, and some even wished to push a broader conflict with the capitalist powers. After years of global war on one hand and the threat of the US in particular, however, the Chinese leadership decided on a different and more moderate path, and saw an opportunity. The Chinese had wished to take control of the leased territory of Guangzhouwan,, held by the French, and to be confirmed the rulers of the Spratly islands, an uninhabited archipelago in the South China Sea, as well as to avoid handing Hong Kong back to the British despite the lease. The French and the British wanted to deny Chinese communist influence in Indochina, and to take back that colony. Also, the French and British were somewhat concerned with the Chinese seizure of Macau from the Portuguese at the end of WWII - that casual military action made some fear China was more open to military action at the time than it really was

In the end, China was able to negotiate for a return of Guangzhouwan, and recognition of control of the Spratly Islands and Hong Kong, in return for retreating from Indochina. France was pleased, the British rather less pleased (though not willing to risk war over Hong Kong), and the Chinese leadership somewhat divided, pleased with the ability to tout the restoration of Chinese territory to the general public in order to cement the rule of the communist party, but with plenty within the party feeling dejected over the retreat from Indochina and allowance of its recolonization even as they saw the pragmatic value in accepting the deal

japanese provisional government and election ib.jpg


11-5 incident ib.png


treaty of paris 1946 ib.png
 
I'm not sure to understand it but i love it
it's based off of an eu4 game i played, and due to it being during the whole native reform really quickly period of eu4 (like the entirety of 1.31, irrc), i picture that NA'd be a mix of pre scramble africa and asia, with europeans mainly trying to get trade rights, which ultimately cause a world war, and a lot of death
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top