CNRP-R Common History

[deSouza]

You mean, a tiny, backwards nation supported by a superpower pitying against another tiny, backwards nation supported by a superpower?

I question the notion that the soviet union was a superpower.

In that time already.

And the "support" it gave to vietnam...

Anyway, its alternate history.

One leader could magically appear and make an alliance with a foreign power that doesn't exactly likes the brits and provides him with modern weaponry...

[The Mongol-Swedes]

I question the notion that the soviet union was a superpower.

In that time already.

And the "support" it gave to vietnam...

Anyway, its alternate history.

One leader could magically appear and make an alliance with a foreign power that doesn't exactly likes the brits and provides him with modern weaponry...

Us Mongol-Swedes, for example. Terribly antagonistic towards the Western meddlers and their dreams of White Empire over the proud peoples of the rest of the world.

But anyway, such is the worth of alternative history.

[Triyun]

Like it was highly improbable that a tiny, backwards and extremely poor southeast asian nation would defeat the meanest, largest and most powerful military machine to have ever existed on earth in a war.

It did not win a military victory, it got the American people to lose support and faith in its governments execution. The Vietcong and North Vietnamese's military record in actual engagements versus the United States was horrible.

[mastab]

It did not win a military victory, it got the American people to lose support and faith in its governments execution. The Vietcong and North Vietnamese's military record in actual engagements versus the United States was horrible.

A guerilla war is a war still.

[deSouza]

It did not win a military victory, it got the American people to lose support and faith in its governments execution. The Vietcong and North Vietnamese's military record in actual engagements versus the United States was horrible.

The american military was driven out of the country through the usage of military force in an openly declared war.

Why or how is irrelevant.

[The Mongol-Swedes]

It did not win a military victory, it got the American people to lose support and faith in its governments execution. The Vietcong and North Vietnamese's military record in actual engagements versus the United States was horrible.

You also ignore the fact that scores of American troops themselves refused to fight because they found that it was an immoral and unjust war. Yes, even the ones that volunteered eventually began to desert or otherwise refuse orders in droves.

Check out "Sir! No Sir!".

[Generalissimo]

HIGHLY improbable. There was close to zero way the Mughals could have beat the British.

You couldn't explain it. It isn't possible at all.

If the colonial efforts of the British could falter in Afghanistan and Tibet they could have just as easily failed in India, as technology does not always determine the success of colonialists. The Mughals would easily have won in circumstances similar to the British expedition to Tibet. Edited February 24, 2009 by Generalissimo

[V The King]

If the colonial efforts of the British could falter in Afghanistan and Tibet they could have just as easily failed in India, as technology does not always determine the success of colonialists. The Mughals would easily have won in circumstances similar to the British expedition to Tibet.

The circumstances of the British expeditions to Tibet and Afghanistan were very different than those in the Mughal uprising - mainly because the Brits were invading a recognized, sovereign nation in the former two, while in the Mughal case, it was a rebellion. Two very different scenarios.

[Generalissimo]

The circumstances of the British expeditions to Tibet and Afghanistan were very different than those in the Mughal uprising - mainly because the Brits were invading a recognized, sovereign nation in the former two, while in the Mughal case, it was a rebellion. Two very different scenarios.

Perhaps India played into the Great Game and received a large influx of covert foreign support and aid, and there would be nothing to stop the Mughals from later internally retconning history to claim a Mughal victory over the Brits without external intervention.

[V The King]

Perhaps India played into the Great Game and received a large influx of covert foreign support and aid, and there would be nothing to stop the Mughals from later internally retconning history to claim a Mughal victory over the Brits without external intervention.

Very doubtfully. The rebels were surrounded by British India and its allies by all sides, they would not be able to receive significant foreign support - India was actually outside of the area of the "Great Game" since it was firmly controlled by Britain for more than a century and Russia had no chance of attempting to influence the region.

[Generalissimo]

Who said it had to be the Russians, this is such an alternate history there’s currently no saying who could have operated against British colonel expansion in Asia.

[Margrave]

As apart of CNRP-R, what would be the history of Missouri? I've no declared continuity yet, and I was thinking R might be fun.

[deSouza]

Very doubtfully. The rebels were surrounded by British India and its allies by all sides, they would not be able to receive significant foreign support - India was actually outside of the area of the "Great Game" since it was firmly controlled by Britain for more than a century and Russia had no chance of attempting to influence the region.

Yeah, like the brits controlled their colonies in the americas as well as the portuguese.

Owait.

[Mergerberger II]

As apart of CNRP-R, what would be the history of Missouri? I've no declared continuity yet, and I was thinking R might be fun.

It was once a British colony, eventually ceded to the US pre-Civil War. The civil war broke up the USA, leaving the CSA intact.... I believe that is the general story.

[Manetheren]

Actually, Missouri was part of the Louisiana Purchase and a US territory/state. With the breakup of the US following its defeat at the hands of the CSA following the Civil War, it would likely have been annexed by the South, but for some reason it wasn't. You would have to come up with a reason for that.

[Mergerberger II]

Actually, Missouri was part of the Louisiana Purchase and a US territory/state. With the breakup of the US following its defeat at the hands of the CSA following the Civil War, it would likely have been annexed by the South, but for some reason it wasn't. You would have to come up with a reason for that.

Oh yes, I suppose it would have been part of the Louisiana Purchase. My mistake.

[Lord Frost]

Jed still waiting on you to respond to the PMs D:

[Cody Seb]

History of the Contemporary Burmese State

Contemporary Burma gained its Independence from the British Raj [and by extension, the British Empire] on January 4, 1948. The state that was established contained all current holdings of modern Burma, and was called the Union of Burma.

During British rule, Burma was the wealthiest province of the Raj, a generous advantage to them being Burmah Oil. The Union of Burma was able to gain control of Burmah Oil after independence and had a bright future. However, widespread corruption gripped the nation as economic laws were too lax, as were immigration and border laws.

With poverty widespread, the entire senior staff of the military conspired against the Union of Burma government and organized a very successful military coup in 1994. The new state that was formed was simply called Burma, with no honorifics or formal names. Once the new Junta established a working government, they quickly organized the signing of new economic and immigration laws that put a strangehold over corruption in the nation.

The new government was able to pull the economy out and re-establish Burmah Oil as a major company. Wealth poured in, and unemployment and poverty levels fell rapidly. Now the nation stands as a fledging and developing country, with much improved technology and infrastructure.

[JEDCJT]

Jed still waiting on you to respond to the PMs D:

I forgot about that. Can I make some amendments, though?

[Lord Frost]

I forgot about that. Can I make some amendments, though?

well yea you can suggest them. Thats the whole point of "working together" heck in my first pm I sent you I asked if there was anything you want to change.

silly beast

[Sovyet Gelibolu]

Following the breakup of the rump United States of America in 1864, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and Iowa formed the Great Lakes Union to better facilitate the commerce in the former American Midwest. The formation of this Union coincided almost exactly with war with the Republic of Missouri, as the GLU was determined to gain St. Louis and Kansas City so as to strengthen their claim against former United States territory in the west that was now unoccupied. The Confederate Army, busy pacifying East Tennessee and Kentucky (which maintained secessionist sympathies and wanted to join the Ohio League which would become Ardoria), was unable to intervene at that time and denied Missouri’s application for statehood. There would be no more applications, as the Missourians were left embittered against the Confederacy.

Confederate non-support notwithstanding, the GLU failed in their objectives, and the Treaty of Springfield restored the status quo ante bellum. Another war in 1886 was militarily successful, gaining a river border on the Missouri River (but neither St. Louis nor Kansas City), but an economic collapse later that same year led to the establishment of the Chicago Commune on May 6 of that year. It was brutally put down by the returning army, but became a symbol of a burgeoning left-wing movement in an area that was beginning to truly industrialize.

Across the border, Canada had taken advantage of its neighbor’s military weakness to claim some of the former US territory west of Minnesota. This led to the GLU’s declaration of war against the British Empire on the side of the Central Powers in 1915, at which point it was utterly crushed and subsumed into Canada.

This state of affairs lasted until 1973, when a severe stock market crash led to the resurgence of socialism in Chicago, Detroit, and Milwaukee, and its appearance for the first time in Toronto. Drawing on the tradition of the Chicago Commune and the more modern Soviet Republics, Ontario, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois declared the formation of the Great Lakes Council Republic. Using defected Canadian military units to subdue more westerly territories and to fend off halfhearted attacks from the east (Brunswick and Ardoria weren’t complaining about the breakup of their domineering and powerful neighbor) the Council Republic expanded to its present size in 1975, at which point the present Constitution was promulgated.

Quite ASB, I know, but w/e.

[Sir Keshav IV]

Now how do you say it as impossible?

Lets see here. That state of Mysore alone defeated the British many a time. The Mughal army was huge. Along with the Nawab's and Peshwas the British would have easily been defeated. I am a Indian Historian and I know the facts. So please don't talk about something that is highly Impossible.

[The Mongol-Swedes]

The Brit-dudes ruled 3/4 of the world. Surely they cannot fail.

Owai-

[Sir Keshav IV]

Well,

It was proven that they only won because of the dis unity among the Mughals and the Nawabs and the rest of the Princely States in India. There were few traitors like the Nizam of Hyderabad who supported the British. They Sepoy Mutiny could have ended the British rule if it was a centralized, planned mutiny. There were more numbers. Also the southern states took no part in the war. But in CNRP[R] I am saying that the North was against and the Souther were with but in the End the Northern parts defeated the British and India was never colonized. It was possible. And for now in CNRP[R] it is going to be my history.

[Mergerberger II]

The Brit-dudes ruled 3/4 of the world. Surely they cannot fail.

Owai-

The British Empire ruled over 25% of the world's land area and 25% of its population at its height in the early 20th century. This was an empire that had been expanding continuously since the exploration of the new world and Genoese explorer John Cabot's landing in Newfoundland. Since this time, it expanded to all reaches of the world, from Australia in 1770 to India in 1858 to Canada in 1764. This was an empire that was truly and utterly massive in all respects of the term. It was the largest empire that ever existed, in both population (as a percentage) and in land area. Larger than the Mongolian Empire and the Qin Chinese Empire combined, it was often said that 'The Sun Never Sets On The British Empire'. It spanned all the world from Hong Kong to Vancouver to London to Cape Town.

With the British Empire came the Industrial Revolution. With massive amounts of resources not only in Britain, but also in her colonies, the United Kingdom was able to produce significantly more than any other nation, and thus began the Industrial Revolution. The introduction of the factory system in Britain allowed for the output of manufactured goods to increase by a truly incredible amount. Englishman Thomas Newcomen invented the Newcomen Steam Engine, and is regarded as a forefather of the Industrial Revolution. With the Industrial Revolution came the ability to produce things for military purposes even faster. Alliances with the United States allowed for more and more importation of resources from what was a massive nation itself.

The collapse of the British Empire was due to the massive stresses of World War I and World War II to the British coffers, as well as widespread independence and nationalist movements, in addition to pressure from outside to give up the Empire. With independence movements growing more and more powerful, Britain slowly gave up her remaining colonies after WWII. After WWI, with the acquisition of mandates in former Ottoman territory, Britain reached her peak. In 1922, the mandate of Egypt was given independence from Britain, with many other British mandates being given independence as well. This, coupled with the Balfour Declaration, gave hope to the various overseas territories of Britain that they would gain independence, and thus began the independence movements in the states that Britain still controlled.

I would argue that Britain did not fail. In fact, I would argue that it succeeded, or at least it succeeded better than the system we have now. In British Raj, there was no conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. They were not threatening one another with weapons of mass destruction (though they did not have them...), and it was fairly peaceful. I would say that I am 100% confident that in British Africa there was a better set-up than there is today. While it is true that they did $%&@ the land and exploit the people for their resources, and they had some powerful men that were not good people, and they participated in things such as the slave trade until 1834, I would still say that British Africa post-1850 was still better than it is today. No genocide, less starvation (there is always starvation in all places), and a fairly peaceful world that they would have lived in, free of coups and civil war, the stuff that plagues so much of Africa today.

I am not saying it was great, and I am not defending all the poor things that Britain did, I'm just saying for all the bad they did, they did a decent amount of good, and there's no denying that Peace is better than War.