Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread

LouisTheGreyFox

LouisTheGreyFox

There are many proposals for new states in India even as of 2024 according to map on Wikipedia. I felt this would be very interested to share at the very least. Also Delhi being proposed as a state is somehow very similar to DC statehood here in America.

800px-Proposed_states_and_union_territories_of_India.svg.png
 
NorthTension

NorthTension

Finally got around to fixing this up (click the pic to get to the full resolution):
1705260564741.png
Borders of the planned South African invasion/intervention of Portuguese Mozambique and UNAR & Malawi's plan for Rumbezia/Rombezia, which Hastings Banda wanted to annex into Malawi proper, over an ethnic map.

Whatever the planned state south of the Save River would be, it would be almost entirely Vatsonga, the central region would be almost entirely Mashona and Rumbezia/Rombezia would be the most ethnically diverse.
 

Sharklord1

Fidel Castro Socialist Proposal.png

Apparently, in 1977 when Fidel Castro was becoming involved in the Second Ogaden War, he attempted to broker a truce by proposing to merge Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Yemen together in a federation. I don't know if this is totally true, but I did find a possibly credible source:
www.accord.org.za

Remembering the Ogaden War 45 Years Later: Four and a Half Lessons Towards a Peaceful Future – ACCORD

45 years ago, Africa was confronted with its first inter-state war when Somalia tried to annex the Ogaden from Ethiopia. This PPB offers insight into the conflict.
www.accord.org.za www.accord.org.za
No I don't know what the finer details were besides a very vauge statement by this source. I'm not sure even what he would be thinking. It seems sort of logical since Castro was far more willing to sideline national/ethnic identities to create communist states (Hence he got involved in multiple civil wars in Africa). Although I'm not sure he ever knew much about Somalia, Ethiopia, or Yemen anyways.
Either way, it was rejected by all.
 

164522

Sharklord1 said:
View attachment 883209
Apparently, in 1977 when Fidel Castro was becoming involved in the Second Ogaden War, he attempted to broker a truce by proposing to merge Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Yemen together in a federation. I don't know if this is totally true, but I did find a possibly credible source:
www.accord.org.za

Remembering the Ogaden War 45 Years Later: Four and a Half Lessons Towards a Peaceful Future – ACCORD

45 years ago, Africa was confronted with its first inter-state war when Somalia tried to annex the Ogaden from Ethiopia. This PPB offers insight into the conflict.
www.accord.org.za www.accord.org.za
No I don't know what the finer details were besides a very vauge statement by this source. I'm not sure even what he would be thinking. It seems sort of logical since Castro was far more willing to sideline national/ethnic identities to create communist states (Hence he got involved in multiple civil wars in Africa). Although I'm not sure he ever knew much about Somalia, Ethiopia, or Yemen anyways.
Either way, it was rejected by all.
Click to expand...
the Red Sea Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?))
 
Flashman

Flashman

Sharklord1 said:
View attachment 883209
Apparently, in 1977 when Fidel Castro was becoming involved in the Second Ogaden War, he attempted to broker a truce by proposing to merge Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Yemen together in a federation. I don't know if this is totally true, but I did find a possibly credible source:
www.accord.org.za

Remembering the Ogaden War 45 Years Later: Four and a Half Lessons Towards a Peaceful Future – ACCORD

45 years ago, Africa was confronted with its first inter-state war when Somalia tried to annex the Ogaden from Ethiopia. This PPB offers insight into the conflict.
www.accord.org.za www.accord.org.za
No I don't know what the finer details were besides a very vauge statement by this source. I'm not sure even what he would be thinking. It seems sort of logical since Castro was far more willing to sideline national/ethnic identities to create communist states (Hence he got involved in multiple civil wars in Africa). Although I'm not sure he ever knew much about Somalia, Ethiopia, or Yemen anyways.
Either way, it was rejected by all.
Click to expand...
Super cool, though it is highly harebrained.
 
CountofDooku

CountofDooku

Sharklord1 said:
View attachment 883209
Apparently, in 1977 when Fidel Castro was becoming involved in the Second Ogaden War, he attempted to broker a truce by proposing to merge Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Yemen together in a federation. I don't know if this is totally true, but I did find a possibly credible source:
www.accord.org.za

Remembering the Ogaden War 45 Years Later: Four and a Half Lessons Towards a Peaceful Future – ACCORD

45 years ago, Africa was confronted with its first inter-state war when Somalia tried to annex the Ogaden from Ethiopia. This PPB offers insight into the conflict.
www.accord.org.za www.accord.org.za
No I don't know what the finer details were besides a very vauge statement by this source. I'm not sure even what he would be thinking. It seems sort of logical since Castro was far more willing to sideline national/ethnic identities to create communist states (Hence he got involved in multiple civil wars in Africa). Although I'm not sure he ever knew much about Somalia, Ethiopia, or Yemen anyways.
Either way, it was rejected by all.
Click to expand...
Well Gaddhafi suggested to breakup Switzerland, so maybe crazy dictators just have a flair for such projects and ideas?
 

Sharklord1

CountofDooku said:
Well Gaddhafi suggested to breakup Switzerland, so maybe crazy dictators just have a flair for such projects and ideas?
Click to expand...
Flashman said:
Super cool, though it is highly harebrained.
Click to expand...
That's not something unusual for dictators, but proposals like this happen way less often than what they really love: plunging your nation into a devastating war which goes nowhere, kills thousands, ruins the economy, and causes the world to realize your weaknesses
Pull a dictator out of a hat that lasted more than a year, and they will declare war with war aims more based upon national pride and restoring public confidence in a them
- Tsar Nicholas II: Declared War on the Japanese for dominance in Manchuria and restoring national pride. Fast forward a year and he got humiliated by the Japanese due to poor military reforms
- Hitler: Declared war on everyone with the intent of building a dystopian utopian reality. Forced to kill himself after 12 years in power, and led to the world being changed forever. To his credit, he did actually beat France, Yugoslavia, and possibly came close to beating the Soviet Union. Of course, all were largely pyrrhic victories which revealed strategic problems with Hitler's overall goals
- Saddam Hussein: Everything this guy did led to some nationalist war for expansion, whether it be Iran, Kuwait, or attempted to provoke Israel into a War. Lost all of them, including the one he unintentionally started
- Gaddhafi: Actually had a fighting chance to win his war with Chad over the Aouzou strip and possibly also most of northern Chad. However, he ended up getting defeated by the almighty Toyota Hilux (just a note, the Toyotas would have been rendered ineffective without French air support). Plus, he often decided to poke the American eagle, doing no favors to himself when 2011 rolled around and his Dictatorship was accused of warcrimes and countless human rights violations. It's surprising that there are so many who adore this guy, even though he was responsible for all of the problems that led to his downfall and partially responsible for creating the circumstances for the second civil war.
-Siad Barre: Also had a pretty good shot for winning his war in 1977, but he still failed miserably due to his poor diplomatic wrangling of Cuba and the Soviet Union. He also gave into inter-clan violence, which was just completely pointless and is one of the primary reasons people consider Somalia a failed state
- Idi Amin: Decided the best thing to do in his position was to make a border dispute with a hostile power to his South, and got absolutely ass-blasted by Tanzania by claiming the Kagera Salient. Even better, Gaddafi and the PLO (yes the one supposed to be liberating Palestine) were in this war for whatever reason

You get the picture. I'm sure you could also bring up other guys who did the same thing.
 
Flashman

Flashman

Sharklord1 said:
That's not something unusual for dictators, but proposals like this happen way less often than what they really love: plunging your nation into a devastating war which goes nowhere, kills thousands, ruins the economy, and causes the world to realize your weaknesses
Pull a dictator out of a hat that lasted more than a year, and they will declare war with war aims more based upon national pride and restoring public confidence in a them
- Tsar Nicholas II: Declared War on the Japanese for dominance in Manchuria and restoring national pride. Fast forward a year and he got humiliated by the Japanese due to poor military reforms
- Hitler: Declared war on everyone with the intent of building a dystopian utopian reality. Forced to kill himself after 12 years in power, and led to the world being changed forever. To his credit, he did actually beat France, Yugoslavia, and possibly came close to beating the Soviet Union. Of course, all were largely pyrrhic victories which revealed strategic problems with Hitler's overall goals
- Saddam Hussein: Everything this guy did led to some nationalist war for expansion, whether it be Iran, Kuwait, or attempted to provoke Israel into a War. Lost all of them, including the one he unintentionally started
- Gaddhafi: Actually had a fighting chance to win his war with Chad over the Aouzou strip and possibly also most of northern Chad. However, he ended up getting defeated by the almighty Toyota Hilux (just a note, the Toyotas would have been rendered ineffective without French air support). Plus, he often decided to poke the American eagle, doing no favors to himself when 2011 rolled around and his Dictatorship was accused of warcrimes and countless human rights violations. It's surprising that there are so many who adore this guy, even though he was responsible for all of the problems that led to his downfall and partially responsible for creating the circumstances for the second civil war.
-Siad Barre: Also had a pretty good shot for winning his war in 1977, but he still failed miserably due to his poor diplomatic wrangling of Cuba and the Soviet Union. He also gave into inter-clan violence, which was just completely pointless and is one of the primary reasons people consider Somalia a failed state
- Idi Amin: Decided the best thing to do in his position was to make a border dispute with a hostile power to his South, and got absolutely ass-blasted by Tanzania by claiming the Kagera Salient. Even better, Gaddafi and the PLO (yes the one supposed to be liberating Palestine) were in this war for whatever reason

You get the picture. I'm sure you could also bring up other guys who did the same thing.
Click to expand...
I don't think Tsar Nicholas II really qualifies as a dictator in the sense of the other figures. A monarch could fill fill the role of the various 20th century republican autocrats, but I think Nicky is much more in line with other 19th century monarchs.
 

Sharklord1

Flashman said:
I don't think Tsar Nicholas II really qualifies as a dictator in the sense of the other figures. A monarch could fill fill the role of the various 20th century republican autocrats, but I think Nicky is much more in line with other 19th century monarchs.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Nicholas II's reign was marked by violence and bloodshed, as was his father's, grandfather's, and great grandfather's reigns were. They often repressed opposition, and they ruled as essentially absolutist monarchs. They did things which in the modern day would be considered atrocities, and their political structure was and is completely irreconcilable to a modern, 'free' and 'democratic government. In many ways, the Russian government was more like the 17th century monarchs, and contemporaries like Lord Salisbury and the multitude of modern historians considered and still consider the 18th century Tsardom highly backwards. Heck, the only real time Russian Tsar's even considered the opinions and words of their subjects was when pan-slavism or patriotism was concerned, which had huge amounts of public support in Russia. Nicholas was never the most committed to either repression or reform whole-heartedly. he believed he was chosen by God to rule Russia and therefore suppressed any attempts to change this status quo. He sent plenty of people to the gulags. He revoked the Duma of 1905 after he was in a position to do so. His ministers like Pyotr Stolypin and Sergei Witte coupled positive economic reform with secret police activities. Only in 1917 when the key to his power, the military, turned on him, he was out of options essentially. The worst part is, he missed several opportunities time and time again to reform. Nicholas may have been less brutal than his predecessors by number of massacres, but it's more because Nicholas was generally more incompetent when it game to governing the huge empire, in no small part due to his indecisiveness on state policy.

The 19th century monarchs were also quite similar to a modern dictator, especially the absolutist monarchs, who with an iron fist. We just look at them differently than modern dictators due to the cultural differences in the era they lived in, the government structure, the lack of cold war politics, differences in social standards and economies, and the fact many were just monarchs in general rather than military generals gaining power in a coup d'etat.

With that said, tell me why you think he wasn't like the modern dictators
 
Flashman

Flashman

Sharklord1 said:
Not quite. Nicholas II's reign was marked by violence and bloodshed, as was his father's, grandfather's, and great grandfather's reigns were. They often repressed opposition, and they ruled as essentially absolutist monarchs. They did things which in the modern day would be considered atrocities, and their political structure was and is completely irreconcilable to a modern, 'free' and 'democratic government. In many ways, the Russian government was more like the 17th century monarchs, and contemporaries like Lord Salisbury and the multitude of modern historians considered and still consider the 18th century Tsardom highly backwards. Heck, the only real time Russian Tsar's even considered the opinions and words of their subjects was when pan-slavism or patriotism was concerned, which had huge amounts of public support in Russia. Nicholas was never the most committed to either repression or reform whole-heartedly. he believed he was chosen by God to rule Russia and therefore suppressed any attempts to change this status quo. He sent plenty of people to the gulags. He revoked the Duma of 1905 after he was in a position to do so. His ministers like Pyotr Stolypin and Sergei Witte coupled positive economic reform with secret police activities. Only in 1917 when the key to his power, the military, turned on him, he was out of options essentially. The worst part is, he missed several opportunities time and time again to reform. Nicholas may have been less brutal than his predecessors by number of massacres, but it's more because Nicholas was generally more incompetent when it game to governing the huge empire, in no small part due to his indecisiveness on state policy.

The 19th century monarchs were also quite similar to a modern dictator, especially the absolutist monarchs, who with an iron fist. We just look at them differently than modern dictators due to the cultural differences in the era they lived in, the government structure, the lack of cold war politics, differences in social standards and economies, and the fact many were just monarchs in general rather than military generals gaining power in a coup d'etat.

With that said, tell me why you think he wasn't like the modern dictators
Click to expand...
We'll rather off topic, so I'll keep it brief: I do not mean to say that Nicholas II was good or forward-looking, he was an illiberal autocrat... but he rises out of a long line of autocrats dating to before modernity and indeed strove against it, which is fundamentally unliked the others who you listed who represent some rupture or failure of modernity. It feels uninstructive to class Nicky with those in the same way it feels uninstructive to class Ashurbahnipal with them.

But like I said, it's off topic, and it's semantic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top