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

Status
Not open for further replies.
A dumb little ASB thing. FDR picks the outspokenly left-liberal Reagan as his running mate in 1944, and Reagan assumes office upon his death. Governing strongly to the left of Truman (conceding to the post-war strikes, pushing for international nuclear control, vocally backing civil rights), Reagan wins a landslide at the helm of a shining new Democratic Party expunged of Southern Democrats. His re-election is derailed by the revelation of his association with the Communist Party in the 30s, and the election is a mess. By 1956 the South is seemingly permanently lost, and Dirksen sweeps with the promise of rolling back the radicalism of the past eight years.
View attachment 633871
View attachment 633873
View attachment 633874
No offense, but I feel like there most certainly would be a southern third party in all of these elections, not just 1948.

For 52, I could kinda see Taft actually taking the south since he was anti-Civil Rights (more out of principle), but he was a rep so I doubt the south would actually all go to him. And if Reagan is a huge civil rights supporter in this TL, then I doubt any of the south goes to him.

For 56, the south would not go to Dirksen since he was a major supporter of Civil Rights, and so was Humphrey, which would cause another Dixiecrat Presidential ticket.
 
March Madness!

975F1737-A27E-40BB-BE53-3A3870403846.jpeg


David Brenner was born in San Jose, and then moved to Seattle aged 10 when his father got a job at Microsoft. He attended college at Washington State, then attended graduate school in Civil Engineering at the University of Illinois-Champaign, where he met his wife Rebecca. He began his professional career for the City of Springfield, Illinois, before returning to Seattle to work as a Civil Engineer in King County, specializing in bridges.

Brenner is a Seattle Sounders fan, and holds season tickets. By his own admission he lost much of his interest in Basketball when the SuperSonics relocated when he was 20.

Nonetheless, Brenner entered an office bracket pool at the King County Road Services Division, with a prize of $200 and an Arby’s Gift-card. He also entered his bracket in the online ESPN competition, which offered a trip to Hawaii and an Amazon gift card worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. By his own admission he finished the bracket in under half an hour and mostly picked higher seeded teams “except when they had a cool name or mascot.“

Brenner won both his office pool and the ESPN contest by the end of the first round, having predicted each of the 32 games correctly, including the upset of the tournament when 15-seed Toledo upset 2-seed Duke. This was already notable, and only became more so when Brenner successfully predicted the entire Round of 32 correctly. When 3-Seed Iowa defeated 2-seed Auburn in the second game of the Sweet 16, Brenner surpassed Columbus native Gregg Nigl‘s 2019 Bracket as the longest perfect bracket. Brenner truly exploded into the national consciousness when the Sweet Sixteen concluded and his bracket remained perfect.

The 2030 Tournament had largely been categorized as ”boring” with the sole Cinderella team, Toledo, being thumped by Michigan in the Sweet Sixteen. Brenner’s Bracket became the central narrative of the tournament, with every game placing it in jeopardy. Technically the closest the Bracket came to be being busted was the triple-overtime Rutgers win over Oregon in the Round of 32, but the moment most remember is Michigan State’s thrilling 23-point comeback to save the bracket against Kansas in the Elite Eight. With that game!s completion, the odds turned in favor of his bracket, based on the remaining teams.

Several companies offered Brenner massive rewards should his Bracket be perfect, and he sighed several endorsement deals, although he remained in his job and disclaimed any particular insight. The NCAA flew him to Dallas for the Final Four games, which he had correctly predicted. He was given box seats for the 1-seed North Carolina vs 1-seed Kentucky final, of which he had predicted Duke as the winner. Despite bluster from Kentucky, the final was never really in doubt, and Brenner’s perfect bracket was complete. He was invited onto the court after the win, although he graciously allowed Duke to complete their ceremonies before heading down and accepting a large number of novelty checks. He would later visit the White House.

Brenner has offered substantial charitable donations, including to the Seattle area ACLU, Seattle Zoo, and his own Synagogue, Temple De Hirsch Sinai. He again submitted a Bracket in 2031, which was busted in the first game of the tournament when the University of Nevada-Las Vegas defeated Michigan.
 
Last edited:
Eww. Why are those Californian borders like that...
California is able to convince Congress to set the boarders like that, though not without it's statehood being delayed until 1862. While some northerners in congress mistrusted the larger California and wished for edits to it's state-wide area, they were preempted by a disgruntled fire-eater pulling a John Brown in wanting to incite California's succession into the Confederacy. Fears that the territory of California would join the CSA justified the action, so Congress hastily agreed to the Californian boarder demands out of a desire to maintain the Union.
 
No offense, but I feel like there most certainly would be a southern third party in all of these elections, not just 1948.

For 52, I could kinda see Taft actually taking the south since he was anti-Civil Rights (more out of principle), but he was a rep so I doubt the south would actually all go to him. And if Reagan is a huge civil rights supporter in this TL, then I doubt any of the south goes to him.

For 56, the south would not go to Dirksen since he was a major supporter of Civil Rights, and so was Humphrey, which would cause another Dixiecrat Presidential ticket.
You're probably right, but I figure that if Dirksen sees which way the wind is blowing he'll stay mute on civil rights and allow Goldwater to do the campaigning in the South.
 
March Madness!

View attachment 634133

David Brenner was born in San Jose, and then moved to Seattle aged 10 when his father got a job at Microsoft. He attended college at Washington State, then attended graduate school in Civil Engineering at the University of Illinois-Champaign, where he met his wife Rebecca. He began his professional career for the City of Springfield, Illinois, before returning to Seattle to work as a Civil Engineer in King County, specializing in bridges.

Brenner is a Seattle Sounders fan, and holds season tickets. By his own admission he lost much of his interest in Basketball when the SuperSonics relocated when he was 20.

Nonetheless, Brenner entered an office bracket pool at the King County Road Services Division, with a prize of $200 and an Arby’s Gift-card. He also entered his bracket in the online ESPN competition, which offered a trip to Hawaii and an Amazon gift card worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. By his own admission he finished the bracket in under half an hour and mostly picked higher seeded teams “except when they had a cool name or mascot.“

Brenner won both his office pool and the ESPN contest by the end of the first round, having predicted each of the 32 games correctly, including the upset of the tournament when 15-seed Toledo upset 2-seed Duke. This was already notable, and only became more so when Brenner successfully predicted the entire Round of 32 correctly. When 3-Seed Iowa defeated 2-seed Auburn in the second game of the Sweet 16, Brenner surpassed Columbus native Gregg Nigl‘s 2019 Bracket as the longest perfect bracket. Brenner truly exploded into the national consciousness when the Sweet Sixteen concluded and his bracket remained perfect.

The 2030 Tournament had largely been categorized as ”boring” with the sole Cinderella team, Toledo, being thumped by Duke in the Sweet Sixteen. Brenner’s Bracket became the central narrative of the tournament, with every game placing it in jeopardy. Technically the closest the Bracket came to be being busted was the triple-overtime Rutgers win over Oregon in the Round of 32, but the moment most remember is Michigan State’s thrilling 23-point comeback to save the bracket against Kansas in the Elite Eight. With that game!s completion, the odds turned in favor of his bracket, based on the remaining teams.

Several companies offered Brenner massive rewards should his Bracket be perfect, and he sighed several endorsement deals, although he remained in his job and disclaimed any particular insight. The NCAA flew him to Dallas for the Final Four games, which he had correctly predicted. He was given box seats for the 1-seed Duke vs 1-seed Kentucky final, of which he had predicted Duke as the winner. Despite bluster from Kentucky, the final was never really in doubt, and Brenner’s perfect bracket was complete. He was invited onto the court after the win, although he graciously allowed Duke to complete their ceremonies before heading down and accepting a large number of novelty checks. He would later visit the White House.

Brenner has offered substantial charitable donations, including to the Seattle area ACLU, Seattle Zoo, and his own Synagogue, Temple De Hirsch Sinai. He again submitted a Bracket in 2031, which was busted in the first game of the tournament when the University of Nevada-Las Vegas defeated Michigan.
15 seeded Toledo upset 2 seed Duke in the first round, but then lost to Duke in the Sweet 16, and then a 1 seeded Duke went on to win the tournament? None of that makes any sense, Duke would have to be a 1, 2, and 3 seed all at the same time
 
15 seeded Toledo upset 2 seed Duke in the first round, but then lost to Duke in the Sweet 16, and then a 1 seeded Duke went on to win the tournament? None of that makes any sense, Duke would have to be a 1, 2, and 3 seed all at the same time
In 2023 Duke University Splits into 3.

(Not how sure I goofed it up this bad. It will be fixed promptly.)
 
I have a challenge for you guys whoever can make me an infobox of a caddyshack tv series and serve as creative consultant for my John Belushi survived timeline that i made once with @Pedro Orochi
You know kirbopher15, instead of asking other to make infoboxes for you constantly, why don't you try to make an infobox of your liking yourself? Constantly asking other users for infoboxes about John Belushi this and Dan Aykroyd that is coming across as very annoying, especially with you doing it nearly every day or so.:tiredface:

I'm sorry if this comes off as mean, but this is getting on my (and a lot of other people's to the looks of it) last nerves!
 
Last edited:
It suddenly dawned on me the other day that whenever I do TLs with John Smith in, I always still have him die of his heart attack in 1994. So I thought I'd write what in Wayne's World terms you might call 'the super-happy ending' for him. :openedeyewink:

*
1616249715734.png


Sir John Smith, QC, is a retired British Labour politician, who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007, the longest-serving ever to come from the Labour Party and to never represent an English constituency, and as Leader of the Labour Party from 1992 to 2007, the second longest-serving behind Clement Attlee.

He entered Parliament as MP for North Lanarkshire in central Scotland in 1970, establishing himself as a pro-European moderate member of the Labour right, and served in junior ministerial roles in the fourth Wilson government and briefly as Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade in Callaghan’s Cabinet from 1978-9. He rose through the ranks of Labour’s Shadow Cabinet between 1979 and 1992, when after Labour’s shock defeat in that year’s election to John Major’s Conservatives, he was elected to succeed Neil Kinnock as leader of the Labour Party and of the Opposition.

As Leader of the Opposition, Smith continued to reform Labour as Kinnock had, abolishing the trade union block vote at the party conference in favour of ‘one member, one vote’ and making some moves to reduce its spending pledges on child benefit. Despite this, he faced opposition from right wing 'modernisers' such as his Shadow Home Secretary Tony Blair, who were adamant that Labour should move to the centre to win the next election; Smith largely rejected these overtures, instead focusing on sniping at repeated sleaze and divisions within the Major government while recognizing the electorate was finally warming to Labour's social democratic principles again. Despite suffering a heart attack in May 1994, he made a fortuitous recovery and memorably condemned Tory disability minister Nicholas Scott for misleading Parliament in a press interview given that evening from his hospital bed, an image which endeared many British voters to him and bolstered Labour's already consistently huge leads over the Tories in the polls.

The 1997 election saw Labour win its biggest landslide ever, with a majority of 149 seats in the Commons, which silenced claims from Smith's critics that the public had no appetite for 'old Labour'. The first Smith government became very popular with the public for undoing several of the more unpopular neoliberal economic policies of the Thatcher and Major governments, such as renationalising the railways, abolishing the NHS’s ‘internal market’, introducing the national minimum wage, reforming schools to bring the English and Welsh model closer to the Scottish model (which both Smith and his Education Secretary Ann Taylor saw as fairer), and ending the UK's opt-out of the Maastricht Treaty’s ‘social chapter’ so it would guarantee certain minimum working conditions, something the Tories had aggressively objected to under Major.

On social issues his first government was similarly bold, with devolution being implemented in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Greater London (without referendums, except to ratify the Good Friday Agreement- Smith admitted after leaving Number 10 that he eschewed them because of how divisive they had been under Wilson and Callaghan), his Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam negotiating a settled peace agreement between the Protestant leaders and IRA (something Smith stayed out of due to his own Protestantism), and abolished the homophobic Section 28 of the Local Government Act. He also introduced more diversity to a British Cabinet than ever by giving positions to Paul Boateng, Keith Vaz and Chris Smith, the first black, Asian and openly gay members of a British Cabinet respectively.

Despite the Tories trying to hammer him for being too radical in the run up to the general election in the summer of 2001, their attacks had little impact- Smith was well-liked by both the public and most of the Labour base, and their new leader Michael Portillo had badly humiliated himself by advocating to keep Section 28 only for allegations to emerge that he had taken part in homosexual acts at university (reported in the Sun in 1999, showing the odd nebulousness of Murdoch’s press in the Smith years). While Labour won a slightly reduced majority of 123 that year, they also picked up several seats against the grain, including Enfield Southgate- thanks to a concerted effort by former NUS figure (and homosexual) Stephen Twigg, Portillo became the first Leader of the Opposition in 70 years to lose his seat at a general election. Consequently, Smith and his party enjoyed what they felt to be a major moral victory, having for the first time secured a second full term for Labour.

The idealism of the Smith years, like that of most countries enjoying a peaceful climate in the early 21st century, was shattered just two months after the election, as 9/11 saw new US President George W. Bush begin his ‘war on terror’ in earnest. With this came a war within the Labour Party, as Blair, the Home Secretary and Smith’s main rival on the party’s right, started advocating for closer relations with the US, up to and including backing Bush’s desire to go to war with Iraq. While Smith did acquiesce to supporting forces in Afghanistan, he and his Foreign Secretary Robin Cook never supported the UK going into Iraq, both because they saw the evidence as flimsy and because of how the Afghan intervention had proven more problematic than expected. This led to many fights between the two in Cabinet- Smith reportedly once told Blair on the matter, ‘this is why I put you in the Home Office and not the Foreign Office, Tony’.

It has also been argued that this conflict was why Smith did not resign on the tenth anniversary of his ascent to the Labour leadership, as he had considered. Seeing Bush as a far-right warmonger, and knowing Bush saw him as a cowardly liberal European, Smith made common cause with other social democrats in Europe, particularly new French President Lionel Jospin and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, against Bush. Eventually, his problem took care of itself for him, as Blair resigned both from the Cabinet and the Commons in a fit of pique in late 2002, though to his frustration Labour had no trouble holding Sedgefield in his absence.

Perhaps partially because of this, as his second term continued Smith turned to reforming Britain’s relationship with Europe, helping push for its institutions to shift a little more towards democratizing and worker’s rights provisions to combat Euroscepticism. (At the same time, and on similar principles, he introduced devolution to the English regions, though these did not inspire the same political excitement as in the Celtic nations or London.) The results of this were not as substantial as he hoped, and Brown convinced him not to join the Euro, but it did somewhat foster better relations between Eastern Europeans from new EU members who migrated to the UK and the British public from 2004 onwards.

Ironically, he got a little help on that point from the Tories, led from 2001-3 by Iain Duncan Smith (whose disastrously ineffectual leadership prevented the party capitalizing on the feud between Smith and Blair) and then from 2003-5 by Michael Howard, which came under fire for their ‘firm but fair’ attitude to immigration and heavy emphasis on it in Conservative campaigning materials that many people started to perceive as simply racism.

When the 2005 election came round, it was a muted affair. While Labour were not in the best shape thanks to the infighting and Smith’s age reducing how much he could campaign due to the strain on his heart, Howard was far from a credible alternative, and the Tories could only manage a net gain of 7 seats. Labour emerged with a hefty 102-seat majority, and the main headlines were on the 64.1% turnout, the lowest since 1918, rather than any accusations of Smith being undermined.

Smith’s third and final government was also fairly limited in its scope. The 7/7 bombing in July 2005, and the fairly understated response to it, finally started to cause the public to sour on Smith, and when the Tories elected the young and rather moderate David Cameron as their new leader that December, he made a name for himself running rings around Smith in Parliament.

Despite this, as the right of the party had been demotivated after Blair’s departure and there was little appetite for anyone to Smith’s left, he continued in power until the 2nd May 2007, the tenth anniversary of him taking over as Prime Minister. After a leadership contest between two rather unpopular and long-serving figures- his Deputy Prime Minister Margaret Beckett, and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown- Beckett won, and would go on to serve as Prime Minister until Labour lost the 2010 election.

Smith would also leave the House of Commons that year, after just shy of 40 years in the House of Commons. He has been remembered with more reverence than he was afforded at the end of his premiership, particularly by Labour supporters; in May 2008, a year after stepping down, he famously gave a tongue-in-cheek interview to the Guardian’s Simon Hoggart entitled ‘A Discussion With John Smith QC, the Honourable Member for Airdrie & Shotts’, in which he discussed returning to a quiet constituency life as a backbencher. In the 2009 honours, Beckett granted him a knighthood, though he turned down an offer of membership of the House of Lords from Cameron the following year, not for partisan reasons but citing his heart troubles, and retired from public life.
 
Last edited:
51053500311_e45a9eb2c4_o.png

2021 Socialist Alliance leadership election

A leadership election was triggered by the announcement in December 2020 that Socialist Alliance leader and incumbent Chancellor of the European Federation Bernhard Sanders of the Commonwealth of Poland would not stand for another term and would not lead his party into the 2022 European Parliament elections. It was held at the Socialist Alliance's annual convention, held in Bologna in the Papal States, with all 325 of the Socialist Alliance's MEPs eligible to vote. This was be the second leadership election for a major party in 2021, after the European Greens selected Sean Casten of the United Kingdom to replace longtime leader Hans Kohn.

Five MEPs put themselves forward as candidates: Justice Minister and Deputy Leader of the Socialist Alliance Thomas Mulcair, Minister without Portfolio and party chair Alexandre Boulerice, Deputy Minister of Defence Jószef Sestak, Social Services and Welfare Minister Ronald Reagan Jr., 2nd Earl of Tipperary, Science Minister Martin Heinrich Cordes, and Leader of the European Parliament Fernando Ferrer.

The election quickly became a contest between Mulcair and Reagan, who were widely seen as the standard-bearers of the Alliance's right and left wings respectively. The first round saw the elimination of Ferrer and the withdrawal of Boulerice, who endorsed Mulcair and Reagan respectively. Following the second round, Sestak was eliminated and Cordes dropped out, with the former endorsing Reagan and the latter not making any public announcement, although his supporters largely supported Mulcair. In the final round, Reagan won a clear majority, defeating Mulcair and becoming the next Leader of the Socialist Alliance. In keeping with traditions of European parties, Reagan will be the leading figure in the Socialist Alliance's campaign for the 2022 European Parliament election, but he will not formally assume the leadership until Chancellor Bernhard Sanders resigns after the closing of the 18th European Parliament.

Reagan reportedly offered to retain Mulcair as Deputy Leader of the Socialist Alliance, but the latter refused and later announced his plans not to stand for re-election in 2022. To replace him, Reagan is reportedly considering selecting either Labour Minister Denis McDonough, Agriculture Minister Bernhard Schweitzer, Deputy Health Minister Andrea Horwath, or Cordes.

Previous Posts in the European Federation Series:

List of Chancellors of the European Federation (wikibox)
List of Chancellors of the European Federation (with elections)

I've also got a few more posts in my test thread if you'd like to check them out or share your thoughts and ideas!
 
Some ore wikiboxes from my Decembrist Victory TL.
Same wolrd as these:
Europe in 1840
First Russian Republic
Mikhail Orlov, Head of the Russian State
Alexander, prince-consort of the UK
Second French Republic
August V of Poland, Konstantin Fredrik I of Finland, Friedrich Eugen of Livonia
Mexican-American War (1829-1831) and USA Presidental elections of 1832
Liberation War
The Jewish Republic
List of presidents of the Jewish Republic

and now two wikiboxes about the German revolution, which was a direct conseqence of the Liberation War.
Revoution ended Austrian leadership in Germany and divided Germany into liberal Prussian-dominated (although their first President was born in Baden, and, YES, ITTL there Prussia was citadel of the German Liberalism and later Socialism) German Republic in the North and monarchist South German Union, lead by King of Bavaria, in the South

gr 1.png
friedrichhecker1.png
 
Last edited:
You know kirbopher15, instead of asking other to make infoboxes for you constantly, why don't you try to make an infobox of your liking yourself? Constantly asking other users for infoboxes about John Belushi this and Dan Aykroyd that is coming across as very annoying, especially with you doing it nearly every day or so.:tiredface:

I'm sorry if this comes off as mean, but this is getting on my last nerves!
I'm honestly surprised that my comment got so many thumbs up.:confused: I'm also surprised that @kirbopher15 never bothered to respond yet to what I said.
 
So for my TL which can be found in my Sig. I decided to completely remake the World War 1 Wikipedia page for it and I thought you guys might like it.
eaMkQaN.jpg
SsRmDGi.jpg
2rapSck.jpg
 
I'm honestly surprised that my comment got so many thumbs up.:confused: I'm also surprised that @kirbopher15 never bothered to respond yet to what I said.
It's something that's been going on for a while now, so it's good that you bought it up. If @kirbopher15 likes Blues Brothers-themed alt-history so much, then he should learn to make his own wikiboxes or ask to learn from someone else (I have no hate for kirbopher, but it is getting pretty annoying now).
 
As a follow-up to the John Smith wikibox I did yesterday, here are the wikiboxes for his three general election victories. (And no, if you look closely you can tell the maps aren't the same for each!)

1616262945092.png

1616263098941.png

1616263061308.png
 
World of the Continued United Front
* Second Sino-Japanese War
* Chinese Leaders, 20s and 30s
* Asia after the Second Sino-Japanese War, around 1940
* Sino-Soviet Relations, 1930s to 1950s
* United States Politics, to 1960
* Indochina and the Second Indochina War
*
Indonesia, 1965 to 1989
* Chinese Politics, 1990s
* Russia, 1990s and 2000s

Himalayan Crisis, 2005-2006

When Nepal gained full independence from Britain in 1923 (having previously enjoyed more independence than the Indian princely states, but having nonetheless been something of a client state to Britain even if not a full protectorate), the country was controlled by the same authoritarian monarchy that had ruled since the 1700s. Opposition to the autocracy grew over the next decades and culminated in the 1951 democratic revolution. The 1950s saw a shaky coalition between the monarchy, conservatives and reformers, and then in the first democratic election (in 1959), Nepal elected democratic socialist B. P. Koirala and his Nepali Congress party. But just a little over a year later, the monarchy intervened, overthrowing the democratically elected government, imprisoning Koirala for years, and reinstituting royal autocracy

The 1990s saw another transition to democracy, and this time the elected government was even able to avoid being rapidly overthrown by the monarchy. But it was still a politically turbulent time. Anti-monarchy sentiment was on the rise. And decades of authoritarian traditionalist rule by the monarchy and aristocracy had been met by a growing communist resistance, with several different leftist organizations forming, and rejecting the Nepali Congress Party's democratic socialism (at this point more along the lines of mere social democracy) in favor of the establishment of a Marxist state. Continued poverty, inequality, casteism, traditionalism, and a growing idea that mere bourgeois democracy would not be enough to fight these problems led to a rising Marxist insurgency in the mid to late 90s, though this was also met with increased state repression

Things would escalate in the 2000s. In 2001, a prince of the royal family went on a shooting spree, killing the king, queen, and 7 other members of the royal family before killing himself. The monarchy took a significant hit to popularity, and numerous conspiracy theories emerged regarding the shooting. Furthermore, the new King, Gyanendra, started off quite unpopular, and took actions that cemented this. In 2002, as the communist insurgency intensified and political instability increased, the King took direct control of the government. It was just a temporary measure lasting a week, but the monarchy's flex of power to take total control even in the period of alleged democracy was met with significant opposition, and only further fueled the insurgency's own growth in popularity. Two and a half years later, the King would again overthrow the civilian government, this time indefinitely, declaring a state of emergency and moving to defeat the communist rebellion once and for all. This was immediately met with massive backlash, and very soon after, the communist rebels, who had previously limited their actions to a low level insurgency and transient control in various isolated valleys, turned to a more intense and direct opposition, going on the offensive against government positions and being aided by government deserters. The establishment of the United Left Front between agrarian communist leader Prachanda's organization and various other communist organizations, just days after the King overthrew the government, is traditionally seen as the start of the revolution-proper

China looked on these events with interest. While the Chinese had held onto their inner sphere with little difficulty, communism across the globe had significantly retreated since the late 1980s with the fall of the Soviet Union and of other communist states in Europe and Africa, but here was a communist rebellion rapidly gaining momentum. The 90s saw the Chinese taking a largely non-interventionist stance, focusing on developmental aid and internal socialist development within the Chinese sphere, being eager to avoid international conflicts, at first generally ignoring the insurgency in Nepal. But sentiment in China-first among youth and student activist groups, and then among government and broader society-began to shift in favor of support for the Nepali communists. The outbreak of the revolution in 2005 saw a number of Chinese youth leave the country and fight as volunteers for the Nepali rebels. The government was slower to act, but by the latter part of the year, it authorized direct military intervention in Nepal in support of the rebels

The Nepali Kingdom was unable to resist the communist intervention, but the intervention created a far bigger headache for China than it had predicted - for India gave strong support to the Nepali government

nepal revolution ib.png


Between India and China, the cold war had largely been uneventful, with the countries sometimes being on the opposite side of the Sino-Soviet splits but still largely having an amiable relationship, with a degree of friendliness between the Chinese communists and Nehruvian socialists. The Chinese technically had territorial claims on part of the Indian regions of Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh (holdovers from the Republic of China era) but those claims had largely gone dormant and the Chinese government had little care to pursue them, so this had next to no impact on the relationship between the two countries. But since the 90s, the Indian National Congress had shifted away from Nehruvian socialism, and the Indian political sphere also saw the rise of Hindu nationalism as a force. The shaky coalition Indian government at the time of the Chinese intervention was unwilling to let what it saw as a fellow democracy (despite the coup) fall to communism, and thus thus authorized intervention of its own in Nepal and elsewhere on the border. A diplomatic crisis ensued, and soon skirmishes at the Sino-Indian border descended into war

The Chinese were caught somewhat by surprise by this turn of events, but refused to back down, and shifted forces to the border. The Indian forces, in turn, would be caught by surprise by the strength of the Chinese forces. China hadn't fought a war since their intervention on behalf of the Indochinese revolutionaries, and it was known that the Chinese didn't invest a huge amount into their military, preferring to focus on their nuclear deterrent and on non-military investment. But the force that the Chinese had quietly built up was well trained and equipped, and importantly, prepared for mountain warfare, as well as backed by a reasonably strong logistical capacity and infrastructure (the Chinese communists had invested considerably into the infrastructure and economies of outlying minority regions like Tibet, East Turkestan, Mongolia and Tuva). As a result, the Indian forces were put on the back foot, and the Chinese forces made advances in the Himalayan border areas

To make matters worse for the Indians, the outbreak of the Sino-Indian war saw things escalate in eastern India. In the so-called "red corridor" of eastern India, a low level agrarian communist insurgency had been ongoing since 1967, enabled in part by the significant poverty in the region. The insurgents had been growing in numbers and popularity in the area, and took advantage of the emergence of the war to intensify their own activity and go on the offensive. Suddenly the Indians found themselves with a major thorn in their side from the red corridor insurgents

The Indian government had gambled on a quick show of force to deter the Chinese, and was now regretting its gamble. The Chinese forces had advanced into northeastern India, taking much of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam and advancing on Guwahati, the largest city in the region, with Indian counteroffensives in the area failing to dislodge the Chinese offensives. Furthermore, the outbreak of the war saw Pakistan saber-rattling with their claims on Kashmir, and there were reports of Pakistani forces mobilizing and heading to the border for an offensive against the Indians, threatening to turn the war into a three-front war. Elements among the Indian leadership hoped that once the Indian forces and reserves fully mobilized, they'd manage to push back the attackers, but on the other hand, the Chinese were mobilizing more forces and moving them into the area as well. In the end, the Indian leadership chose to sue for peace

Some among the Chinese leadership had hopes of a larger defeat of India, and potentially aiding the communist insurgency there in taking over the country, but most of the leadership was content to largely stick with their initial goal of defending the Nepalese Revolution, weary of bogging down in larger commitments. They did demand the occupation of the claimed territories in Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh, as well as the occupation of territories disputed with Bhutan (a semi-protectorate of India which joined the war on the Indian side), and agreed to withdraw from the additional territory they'd captured from India. In return, the Indian government agreed to recognize the new Nepali communist government, and to withdraw support for the monarchy-in-exile

The United States did not look happily on the occurrences in the region. The US had given diplomatic and material support to India, and had hoped that the revolution could be suppressed. Further action, however, was not taken-the country was already involved in an unpopular Middle Eastern War and another unpopular Central Asian war, and the support already made for the Indians and Nepali monarchy was enough to cause further backlash among the public. Some commentators pointed out the contrast of the US bogged down in two quagmires of wars while China managed to come out reasonably successful in their own military action in the same era, as well as taking some note of the contrast between Chinese youth and progressive movements being supporters of intervention whereas western youth and progressive movements were largely antiwar, with echoes of the Second Indochina War seen in this aspect

1616264133946_sino indian war ib.png


The Democratic People's Republic of Nepal is the newest member of the so-called "core four" of the Chinese system. It is also by far the poorest, though Chinese aid since the Sino-Indian War has led to significant economic growth in the country. Nepal's leadership is rather more eclectic, especially domestically, than the other countries in the Chinese sphere, in part due to the idiosyncrasy of a vanguard coalition of multiple communist parties rather than the multiple factions within single vanguard party norm seen in China. Regarding foreign policy, the country has often had a more interventionist stance than China itself, urging intervention on behalf of leftists in various situations the Chinese leadership was very weary of stepping into. Despite certain disagreements, though, the new Nepali government has been quite satisfied with its relationship with China

dprn ib.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top