Talk:League of Nations (1983: Doomsday)

Chavez Speech
please somebody cleam (my) Chavez speech, that english sacry (but is funny too), thank U (aniway this is just fantasy, remember i dont hate U, i just used my imagination) --Fero 01:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * very nice imagination very nice fero!!! I think chavez would really be a person that could be "there", whether you like his OTL policy or not:) I just wonder if Chavez speaks Enligsh resp would speak English as he is so against it, but IF he would then it might sound like this.


 * idea: What about if you write this speech (and of course other things if you like) in Spanish as well? We could then integrate it in a new category on DO - Front Page like "media - Documentations, Newspaper articles, Contemporary Documents (speeches etc.) in 3 versions (Spanish, Spanglish, English) similar to the Bethisas project Ben is working on:)


 * We could then translate it into English -- Xi&#39;Reney 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

okey, i can write some... razonable/crazy speech in spanish, and we can traslate to english, i used Chavez ´cause we know he now, but maybe we will us another citizen of S. America, the point is the idea of her speech, hahahah my spanish is native, my english is a little engrish an my spanglish... i like that (but i never say that in hihg voice, is a secret ok), ok we gonna do some documentary of relevant word in the new history of world, and to U, i wanna listen what up with the last german nacion, fundet for suvivers of a german comercial ship in... (bro we are doing good that, guttenmortgen to you i see U when i wake up, Asuka es la ley) --Fero 07:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Vale, a lot of cosas curiosas (siempre pienso en la prononciación de las americanos en mi curso de espanol en Barcelona, CLarOO) :) claro que haré algo sobre los pobrecitos alemanos (si encuentro algunos que todavia viven...) In this sense : Auf weedarsehen :) --Xi&#39;Reney 08:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Die Schweiz war im Kaltenkrieg auch neutral, und wäre nicht angegriffen, nicht war? Vielleicht wohnen manche Schweizer noch glücklich und sicher in den Bergen. Würde die Höhe jemand vor den Bomben hunderte Kilometer weg schützen? Benkarnell 14:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Die Schweiz (und auch Österreich) sind für mich wirklich schwer einzuschätzen... Neutral mit Sicherheit, also auch keine direkten Angriffe. Das wirklich große Problem wäre aber meiner Meinung nach der Fallout der besonders in Süddeutschland (BRD) Frankreich (Angriffsziel wg. eigenem nuklearen Arsenal, Benelux und Italien mit sämtlichen NATO - Hauptquartieren sicherlich massiv wäre. Und dabei schützt auch die Höhe der Alpen nicht wirklich. Ich könnte mir aber vorstellen dass durch die Milizstruktur der Armee besonders in der Schweiz und die mit Sicherheit gut vorbereitetetn Institutionen ein - trotz der zu erwartenden massiven Verwüstungen und Toten- gewisses Mass an Sicherheit und öffentlicher Ordnung aufrechterhalten werden könnte. Also so etwas wie eine überlebende Regierung zumindst einiger Kantone könnte ich mir vorstellen. Wenn man Österreich als ebenfalls neutrales Land dazu nimmt könnte eine Art "Alpes Confederation" (ähnlich den MSP) durchaus exisitieren. Doch der Flüchtlingsstrom aus sämtlichen zerstörten Nachbarstaaten wäre mit Sicherheit auch ein kaum zu bewältigendes Problem. Aber interessantes Thema !! ... OH jetzt hab ich doch glatt den ersten Beitrag auf deutsch geschrieben. :) --Xi&#39;Reney 16:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (English again: tut mir Leid, aber für mich ist deutsch noch sehr schwer... plus, others can read it.) OK, you're right. I do remember reading that some radiation travelled along the ground, and that it would not move as far through mountains... I probably am completely wrong about that. But there probably would be some Kantone that would be less badly damaged. Some of the rural places, plus maybe Liechtenstein, could have come out OK.
 * On the other hand, some places could have even been targets. I have seen maps and know that the Cold War powers did not ignore the Swiss army, which was quite big, at least in those days. If Russia attacked China, it could be that the Warsaw Pact attacked die Schweiz, just in case they should side with NATO.
 * You're also about the refugees. They would put a huge strain on the society. It is something that somebody can explore in the future, maybe.
 * Benkarnell 19:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

i was talk this before, is asia was destroyed, tousand of southeast asians go to nort australia, i believe they do that now in or real world, of course they must do that in there nuclear north world. see Inmigration history of australia --Fero 06:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Rhodesia
Would it be alright if the relatively moderate Rhodesia now caught up in a civil war join the League of Nations. If not that would be fine.


 * My guess would be that they were allowed in last year when the League was founded, but the recent war would hurt them and they would face sanctions. Unless... a year ago, was apartheid in place? I'm afraid I'm not up to speed on the latest changes to the timeline. If you're asking whether they can join now when they couldn't before, my answer would be that organizations like that move slowly, and it would probably take months or longer from the time Rhodesia (re)applied to the time they would ultimately be accepted. Maybe you can have Rhodesia reapply this week. Benkarnell 12:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well Rhodesia wasn't in the League originally because it didn't need to. Once the Nick Griffin regime was started up, they saw even less need because they thought the LoN was going to put sanctions on them because of the apartheid they had reintroduced and their violent conquests. Now that the Nick Griffin regime has been toppled the new government, which has banned apartheid and the RNP and reestablished sovereignty in much of their conquered land, the Rhodesians, severely weakened by the current civil war wants the LoN to step in and negotiates peace. I had an idea that if the League did step in they could create a small coastal state for the radical rebels to resettle in.

Siberia
Siberia is not a member of the league? — Hellerick 13:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone probably just forgot to add it but my guess is it would be a member. Mitro 14:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

UL
Does anyone know when the UL will finally become a full LoN member instead of only an observer? Mr.Xeight 17:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Unity League wont get full membership untii it ceases occupation of the Camoro's--Owen1983 11:46, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Members
The list has to be edited. How can both Argentina and South America be the members of the League? — Hellerick 12:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Also I thought that the SAC, and the Nordic Union for that matter, were just multinational organizations like the EU, so wouldn’t the separate member nations have their own separate representation in the LoN? Mitro 12:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think SAC members should be given individual membership in the League. The multinational unions can be observers. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 14:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Flag
You realize that you recreated the symbol of satanism out of the stars on the flag, right?

Yes finally someone brought that up! It's only like that because from Australia's view the Northern Hemisphere is "at the botoom" and our real wordl symbol was flipped. Mr.Xeight 19:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As Mr.X points out, in this case the star symbolizes the importance of the Southern Hemisphere in the post-Doomsday world. Also other benign cultures have used the symbol as such before and after its adoption by “Satanists.” Mitro 20:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I realized the hexagon-satanism, of course. but as the detailed description says i turned the star around just to emphasize the world now focussing on the southern hemisphere. And after having spent 7 months on the South half of the globe I strongly believe in what I created. and btw the southern cross also is the other way round then depicted in the australian and NZ flag here...:) --Xi&#39;Reney 21:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could a compromise be to have a polar projection similar to our UN's flag, but focused on Australia? And have it ringed by stars, like the European Flag? --Louisiannan 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * About the projection I could imagine something focussing on the pacific...but I will rethink that. And about ringing the stars and the hexagon issue I just imagined the mainly catholic states in the Southern Hemisphere accepting a flag depicting the satanic symbol :):) ...

As the number of memberstates is not longer actual an overhaul is overdue... If you have a time can you make a raw sketch of your idea Louis? Maybe the stars not in yellow...--Xi&#39;Reney 22:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

High Council
The Continental High Council, is it composed of the heads of government of the countries, or their representatives? DarthEinstein 19:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good Question... but as It would be likely to need them to meet quickly and the scattered member states making summits a large task i would say it be their representatives. Of course each nation is free to decide who represents them but I guess then they would have to pay their transport by themselves...--Xi&#39;Reney 15:32, November 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * and Mexico? is not in this page, not in founding day, not now where is mexico in LON, we must add--Fero 05:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Membership
Question on membership: The General Assembly section notes that it gathers once a year, on Sept. 26, to vote on new members for the LoN. Am I to understand that the General Assembly vote decides whether a nation attains membership status (or not), and that this is a once-a-year vote?--BrianD 04:50, October 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * I put it to an initial one- year given the logistical difficulty to assemble politicians from all over the world...

but given the increasing number of member states I would propose the meetings being quarterly (4 times a year)...
 * It would be logical to give the General Assembly the decision...something else would not be acceptable for most nations.--Xi&#39;Reney 15:29, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Superior
I just want to make a note that the Republic of Superior has never been a member of the League of Nations, largely because of the influence of Canada. This is a situation similar to Macedonia being blocked by Greece in regards to NATO, and Turkey in regards to the EU. Lahbas 19:22, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would Canada block Superior's membership in 2008? As far as I can tell there was no serious disputes between them that would cause them to block their membership. Mitro 22:11, November 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Superior's colonization of lands Canada considers their's, and Superior's recognition of Saguenay's independence. Lahbas 01:32, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * I made the changes. Mitro 14:12, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Bermuda
I was wondering how Bermuda could become a member or at least an observer of the LoN? Thanks to anyone who can help --Gamb1993 21:39, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think its safe to say that at this point they are an observer and would probably be a member by next year. Mitro 22:26, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Victoria
Victoria is a Commonwealth. It is emphatically not a Republic. Can someone change the hyperlink to reflect this, please?Ramdominsanity 07:13, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Madagascar
Due to the nature of the present government of Madagascar, having come to power by force, I have written into the article a suspension of its membership of the LoN. Even if the vote is once a year, that vote would have been last September. President Ravalomanana resigned on March 17, 2009, under pressure from his chief political enemy. By all accounts it was not pretty. In OTL the secretary general of the UN censored this action. Though in OTL the UN has not kicked this them out, in TTL the LoN is not the UN, and operates differently with "member nations." Superior, for instance, is suspended for its colonization of another "nation's" land. I submit would have acted much like OTL African Union did with its relations to Madagascar. Suspension of membership should have been at last year's meeting. SouthWriter 00:03, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Virginia
I think Virginia should be added as a member of the LoN. They may have a militaristic edge to their society, but they have been going out of their way to please LoN officials. They have reestablished the democratic institutions abolished by the cold hard necessity of stabilizing the region. They have proven (via Portland) that they can look out for people other than themselves. Does anyone have a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to join?

Yankovic270 00:16, March 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * To "look out for" a tiny city-state on the border of a neighboring country has amounted to using a puppet state to further expand into Tennessee. They used this "partnership" to find and attack a non-aggressive dictatorship that treated them with disrespect. The reason for the expedition to begin with was to "reclaim" the whole state of Tennessee with Portland as its capital. The larger and more viable government - in East Tennessee - was purposely by-passed in this whole scheme. I don't think the Republic has changed enough.--SouthWriter 18:23, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

But - and I feel like I've said this millions of times and nobody ever listens - the League of Nations is supposed to be a place where all nations can meet and have dialogue. It's not a "Good Nations Club." If aggressive countries can't join, the LoN loses effectiveness as a universal discussion forum. Look at the UN: North Korea and so forth are allowed to join. Especially in a postapocalyptic world, I don't think the LoN can afford to be too picky. Most of its members are probably semi-democracies at best. Benkarnell 18:43, March 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Good points. I've tried to establish the LoN representatives in the region as trying to reestablish ties with Virginia - despite the sense I get that Virginia is barely acknowledging the LoN observers on the ground in Portland. The LoN there even backed the Dixie Alliance initially, as the regime in Jackson did need to be removed somehow and the Dixie Alliance had the will and the means to do it. Even if innocent people probably got killed in the enthusiasm to have a decisive victory.BrianD 18:55, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to add - let in Virginia, and Kentucky, and every other North American survivor state discovered before the end of 2009. BrianD 22:27, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Except for Santa Cruz. They are a tyrannical slaver state that undoubtedly cares too much for themselves to want to join.

Yankovic270 00:27, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Good Lord! Does anyone listen to me when I talk about Virginia? They are no longer the dictatorship they were by necessity (I tell everyone that but do they listen? Nooooooooo!). They may be a little gung-ho but they are doing what they do more and more for the benefit of others. Everyone takes one look at their militarism and immediately think ''"that country's evil". ''The Virginians may be the most out-spoken nation in the Dixie Alliance, that doesn't mean they are manipulating it. While they have very close relations, the Commonwealth of Kentucky is not a puppet state, nor is Cape Girardeau or Portland. The Virginians aren't forcing them to do anything they don't want to do. The Dixie Alliance is a group of equals working together for the benefit of the people of the region. If you get past the militaristic veneer you would see that the Virginians enjoy all the freedoms the citizens of the United States enjoyed. There is nothing, and I mean nothing, that makes the Virginian Republic unqualified for LoN membership. Nothing.

Yankovic270 00:55, March 27, 2010 (UTC) 


 * Hey now. I'm listening. By the standards of alt-2010, Virginia is a downright enlightened country. Benkarnell 15:01, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Its about time someone came to my defense instead of attacking Virginia! As I said before, the Virginians enjoy every right and freedom that OTL US citizens enjoyed. Except they have one simple rule. That is that to enjoy these freedoms, one must fight to protect them. It's not all that unreasonable when you think about it. One has to look no further than the US National Guard for an OTL example of this. I don't know what grudge South has against me, but it sounds like he is going out of his way to discredit Virginia.

Yankovic270 15:12, March 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I am one vote, and my nation has not even partitioned to become a member of the LoN. All I am opposed to is the preemptive strike on Jackson under what seems to be a pretense of "claiming" the whole former state for a tiny government that a mighty one has befriended. No thought seems to have been made about the larger government in Morristown. I am faced with two rogue states on my borders -- not far away like Jackson is from Portland. Negotiations are ongoing with the governments in Asheville and Morristown on how to deal with the continuing threat out of Toccoa Falls. But our constitutions do not allow us to fight the battles outside of our bounds.

The LoN has members, such as the USSR (expansionist) and Madagascar (rogue government), that are not ideal. I see no reason why they should remain members either. However, I have not read the LoN charter. If it is a loose-knit policy board with no real "power," then any nation should be able to be a member if it wants to be. If it is a world government, with authority and the power to back it up, then I, for one, don't wish to be a member. Personally, I feel that the Virginian Republic probably could not have risen as Yankovic envisions it. However, I came along a little late in this process, and the Republic is part of the canon. And, as the saying goes, "more power to it." To add to the realism, though, I would suggest adding some background as to Rockefeller's resurrected position after 25 years. Where was he when Thompson showed up to liberate the capital that he had abandoned? Did he return to serve as a lieutenant to Governor-General Thompson before being elected to succeed him?--SouthWriter 18:00, March 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of this is getting dangerously close to role playing, which is not what we're about.
 * SW, I don't think the League of Nations was ever envisioned as a world government. It seems to have a bit more teeth than the UN, but then, so did the UN when it was brand-new (see the Korean War). Most of the LoN's ability to project force comes from the WCRB, an organization begun separately in Australia-New Zealand and then "internationalized" along the model of the old Red Cross, and which still basically acts independently of the League of Nations itself. The LoN re-founded the Red Cross itself under its own auspices, but it is still basically an underfunded and powerless body, much more so than OTL, anyway. The "LoN governed territories", finally, create the illusion of League power, but in fact these are governed by individual nations in some cases (in the style of the old-timey League of Nations mandates), and by committees of nations in others. The other major organ of League power, the space exploration whatsit, can be seen as an international effort to Do Things Differently from the Cold War. Benkarnell 18:16, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, Ben, my referring to "my" nation, and plans "we" have for negotiations appears like I am putting myself into the shoes of Governor Jones or one of his advisors. However, the point is that I am just "guarding" my storyline from unforseen twists in the story being affected by the neighboring "superpowers" (relatively speaking). I have just recently even added to the developing history of Piedmont, while my most likely allies (Blue Ridge and East Tennessee) are not presently seeing much development either. The activities of Kentucky and Virginia are happening "in real time" while lesser states have not caught up with their past histories yet.


 * As for the LoN, I understand the attempt of the former alliance of anglophone nations jumping at the opportunity to take the reigns of after the assumed destruction of the UN and its most prominent members. The nations of Australia and New Zealand had to carry on the ideals which had preserved the world from chaos after WW 2. Hopefully the LoN in TTL can keep from becoming a tool of the superpowers jockying for position. SouthWriter 03:22, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

I could see at least three backgrounds for Rockefeller:
 * 1) Previous Governor of Virginia (OTL West Virginia)
 * 2) Civillian advisor to Thomspon's government
 * 3) Commander of a Virginian Army unit or the second-in-command of one (considering that in Virginia everyone serves in the military this isn't that implausible.)

Yankovic270 18:32, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that it is possible that Virginia could join the LoN Ben? As far as I can tell it meets the criteria. It has had full free and democratic elections. It may have expanded quickly, but I assue you that that phase of the Virginian history is over. I have no intention of writing it being a rogue state like Sicily. This may seem too much like role-playing, and I apologize for it.

Yankovic270 18:39, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

I'd personally let Virginia in the LoN.Sure they've had a troubled past but so did Germany and they are in the OTL UN. As for the claim that Kentucky is a "Puppet State" I reject this notion. Both Virginia and Kentucky are fiercely independent nations. Neither would enter an agreement or treaty that would put their sovereignty at risk. In fairness to South from what I can see he never claimed Kentucky was a puppet state. I think you all have your different opinions and there is nothing wrong with that at all. However you guys do need to relax I don't think South is trying to insult you Yank and vice versa. I agree with Ben when he says this is becoming a little to "RPGish" which is not what we're all about here.GOPZACK 18:45, March 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if Virginia was not even pretending to have free and and democratic elections, it should be a LoN member. Again, look at North Korea, or Saudi Arabia. Or even with the old League of Nations, look at Ethiopia and most of the Latin American countries in those days. In 1983DD, look at Siberia. Benkarnell 18:49, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

How about instead of Rockefeller, you have J. H. Binford Peay III? He was the Commander of the 101st Airborne, and it is very plausible that he survived Doomsday. Does anyone that any other candidates? I prefer that they be from the military.

Yankovic270 22:06, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know any military bigwigs that were in West Virginia at the time of Doomsday and would still be alive today?

Yankovic270 22:14, March 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I must admit, Yank, the new President-General definitely looks the part! I had this fantasy of my own that you might actually change the storyline to inject a little political intrigue in the picture. But then, bringing a liberal such as Rockefeller back from the political grave would probably take a lot of re-writing. ;-)


 * Actually, I am resigned to the military-oriented Republics that you and GOP have created. They work well together. The state of Superior is far less believable, in fact. I look forward to the unfolding of the story this year, but I think much needs to be done in the telling of the story of how the ATL of 2010 got here since the POD. The timeline in the most crucial years is quite sketchy in many survivor communities (at least in North America). Any way, this is getting a little off topic, so I'll leave it there for now. SouthWriter 03:22, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

As everyone knows, the continental United States was in a state of complete anarchy. Parts of the USA not destroyed by Doomsday fractured into many squabbling states. The 101st Airborne did what it did for the people's best interests. This meant doing whatever was necessary to restore peace, stability and prosperity to the land. The mandatory military service was enacted to help better defend the Virginians from the many bandits that lived in the "wilderness" of the former American states.

Yankovic270 03:54, March 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I said I was leaving it for now, and I will. But,, No, I will wait for others to deal with this if they wish. Have a good evening/night (or whatever it is where you are). SouthWriter 04:33, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea for a joint Virginian/Dixie Alliance-LoN operation. A project to restore the destroyed port of Norfolk back to operating status. What do you think? Is it possible?

Yankovic270 02:58, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * At the present time, the combined wealth of the member states (VA and KY) of the Alliance are probably more fluid (if not actually greater) than the LoN as an entity. Of course, if it came to an international effort, with SAC and ANZC nations especially, then it could become a reality. After the years, any residual radiation would be barely discernable. It may be a good faith gesture, though, to consider the input of neighboring nations of Delmarva (who "lays claim" to the city) and Outer Banks, which has strategic interest in the area. SouthWriter 03:57, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Confederation of African Marxist Countries
These should be listed out individually instead of just the organization. Mitro 21:07, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * OkVegas adict 21:08, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

League Of Good Nations
It seems that this isent really for everyone, how is this world going to get along if we all cant talk to each other?, If this is really the League Of Nations, then all should be able to join, just that one other nation dosent agree with that nation, shouldent be blocked out. Yes I know some of these nations are bad, but still they should have the right to talk.-

This isn't like the UN was, that's for sure. 01:43, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's true, because if Sicily is out how can they can discuss with it for peace, because if UN was like that the USA and Israel and most memebers would be have been already expulsed long time ago... VENEZUELA 01:43, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty offensive, Vene. That would be like me saying "Venezuela doesn't deserve to be in the UN". Don't say what you wouldn't want said to you, even if its a fact. Arstarpool 02:01, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that, what i'm saying is that Sicily like countries should enter because Many members (I used USA and Israel as examples) in the UN also have wars, like Russia, UK, and MOST members. VENEZUELA 02:26, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV
Umm, King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV has been dead for the past 4 years now. Do we have zombies leading the free world in this ATL? Now that would be awesome :)--Vladivostok 22:14, November 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously Xi-Reiney had an old reference book (perhaps 2005 Edition Encyclopedia or something). Anyway, fast eye - and grusome sense of humor! I see Mitro quickly fixed the error. I looked up the September 2008 Wikipedia articles of both Tonga and the king -- both were up to date. Xi-R obviously didn't use Wikipedia when writing the original article.


 * But then, the king was very much alive in 1983 and the conditions certainly changed (not so much in Tonga, but who knows?) Deaths in TTL don't have to coincide with those in OTL. We can kill folks off (see Haiti) and we can let them live (See East Britain). SouthWriter 04:04, November 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may - he appears to have died of heart disease brought on by being massively obese. Take it as you will. Lordganon 04:38, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * King_of_Tonga_TT4.jpg
 * Ah, but "fact check" - in the 1990's he trimmed down to under 300 lbs (about 285 if my math is right). The obit says "undisclosed illness" which he was being treated for in New Zealand at the time. The pixture of him in the article (see to the right), seems to be taken after the weight loss. Mind you, he is also tall (6'5"). As an athlete as a young man, his height was an asset. His death, even at 88, seemed to be a surprize. So, you never can tell. It was an oversight on Xi's part, but helps hone our investigative skills. :-) SouthWriter 05:23, November 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well what amuses me the most here, besides the zombies, is that it took us more than two years to spot the inconsistency. We're definately not private eye material, that's for sure :)--Vladivostok 06:55, November 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of that south. But the heart damage, if it happened, would have remained, despite the weight loss. And as someone that height, let me tell you right now - that's still overweight by 40-60 pounds, especially at that age. Lordganon 07:22, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, LG, those height and weight tables have us all on the edge of dying any day from the strain! At six foot I should be down around 200! Or even lower! I carry my weight (not going to tell you what it is!) pretty well, but the charts put me at borderline "obese." And I can still "suck it in." My wife works with the elderly and other (younger) folk that are dying. Overweight is the norm, even at that age. Enough of that, it's Thanksgiving Day! :-) SouthWriter 15:22, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, LG, those height and weight tables have us all on the edge of dying any day from the strain! At six foot I should be down around 200! Or even lower! I carry my weight (not going to tell you what it is!) pretty well, but the charts put me at borderline "obese." And I can still "suck it in." My wife works with the elderly and other (younger) folk that are dying. Overweight is the norm, even at that age. Enough of that, it's Thanksgiving Day! :-) SouthWriter 15:22, November 25, 2010 (UTC)

Turkey
So...yeah...this is Turkey applying to the LoN. Not sure how this works though. Caeruleus 15:42, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Turkey applied in 2009, so I guess I'll wait for possible objections. Caeruleus 17:31, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * They'd likely be blocked by Greece. Arstar 17:43, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

As I would imagine, but I'll wait for Lordganon or Oerwinde to make it official. Though they have no real reason to oppose it, but meh. Caeruleus 18:29, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Caer, so what if Greece doesn't have a reason to oppose Turk membership in the LoN? The USSR doesn't have a true reason to block the tens of nations in the ex-Soviet territory. Fedelede 18:47, November 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, they sort of do. As the successor government to the Soviet Union, they have a semi-legitimate claim to all former Soviet territory. Just like Greece has a semi-legitimate reason to block Macedonia over their control of pre-Doomsday Greek territory (they also oppose the use of the name Macedonia, but that's beyond ridiculous). If they oppose Turkey, it would basically be based on their negative view of Turkey, not any real dispute. Caeruleus 19:17, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would Turkey wait until 2009 to apply? Why would they not be a founding member of the LoN? Mitro 06:04, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Turkey is pretty isolated diplomatically - I doubt they'd be a founding member.

But Arstar is right. As has occurred with several instances - Iran, Santa Cruz, other similar nations - Greece, like others, would block their application through others. All they'd have to do is point to its aggressive nature (or seemingly, even) and it'd be done. Call their motive to not let their annexation of Thrace be questioned, if anything.

Lordganon 06:13, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well, its possible Mitro. Turkey was fairly isolationist until 2000. After that, it began reaching out to the world. Since the LoN was founded in 2008, I have no problem with Turkey being a founding member. Caeruleus 16:52, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

So...does anyone have a problem with Turkey being a founding member of the LoN? Caeruleus 02:25, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

See the rest of the talk page. The reasons for them being not let in afterwards would still stand for being a founding member.

Lordganon 03:32, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Okay...you're going to have to explain that one. Caeruleus 03:55, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I do have to expand on that.

The activities of the Turkish Sultanate are very aggressive in nature, even if they are only reclaiming Anatolia, and they have a stated goal of aggression towards others to boot. Simply put, they would not have been invited to join.

Lordganon 06:30, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Only Greece, and possible a few of its European allies, care about Turkish agression since it merely includes reacquiring their pre-Doomsday territory and they have essentially neutral relations with the rest of the world. Since the LoN wasn't created yet, there would be no mechanism that would enable them to be vetoed. One of the SAC or GSU nations, if no one else, would invite Turkey. Caeruleus 11:41, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia
Macedonia is also applying, so how exactly does this work? Ownerzmcown 15:51, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, entering the LoN is pretty straight forward. Either wait another year for September 26th to come by, or just say that they joined this year. Unless there are objections from other countries about the country joining (like Siberia is doing to all the countries of the former Soviet Union), you can join.--Vladivostok 16:14, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say this Owner, Greece (through others on the main council, of course) would block a Macedonian application.

Lordganon 06:09, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Blocking Nations
I don't think it should be possible to block the admission of a country into the League of Nations. Even if one or two nations don't want the nation in, the others should be able to vote them down. Fo instance, I believe that by the time Siberia gets to the European part of the former Soviet Union, the nations formed in the territory will probably have banded together and will definitely be strong enough to make their annexation improbable (if not downright impossible). No nation should be able to say that another nation is any less deserving of recognition than they are. But this is just for the nations like the former Soviet states or Prussia, whose admission is blocked by another for simply political reasons.

Yank 19:52, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's how the OTL UN does it. However OTL, nations need a legitimate reason to be rejected. For example, no one is not going to let North Korea in because of their violent tendencies and no one is going to suspend Iran's membership because of their nuclear program. The only reason nations don't get accepted into the UN is if they're breakaway nations, like Kosovo or South Ossetia. Also, divided states (like North and South Korea) are generally both given admission if they each have governments. Legitimate nations that aren't considered breakaway nations are generally admitted, which is how I think it should be TTL. Though occasionally if a nation realistically can't claim to control a majority of the territory it claims, like the Republic of China (Taiwan), they will lose their seat, which will then be given to the nation that actually controls the country (like the People's Republic of China). Occasionally, nations are forced to join under a different name or something minor like that due to a dispute with another nation (like OTL Republic of Macedonia which uses the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in the UN). In context of this TL, none of the states in the Former Soviet Union would probably not be admitted because of a Siberian veto, but no other nations that I can think of would be realistically blocked. Caeruleus 20:42, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia could be blocked for its control over Greek Territory and the majority of the Siberian blocks are semi-legitamate. It depends on weather there is a veto power for the Security Council or not. If it depends only on the full council then it would require the rest of the bloc to vote with its leader. I suspect that is how it works and if that is the case Siberia wouldn't be able to block most USSR survivor states although it could block the Russian Confederacy and Iran still because the RC doesn't deny its Nuclear weapons and Iran because it backs TerroristsVegas adict 20:54, November 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither having nuclear weapons or supporting terrorists are crimes, nor would they realistically block their entry. The NPT, which covers all nuclear law, applies only to signatories, and the Russian Confederacy probably hasn't signed it. Terrorists, or a more appropriate term "non-state actors", are used by many nations across the world, like Siberia TTL, and has never prevented a nation from joining the UN OTL. Caeruleus 21:09, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the Greeks lost their claim to the territory when they effectively decided it wasn't worth the effort to reclaim. The Macedonians have a much stronger claim to it as they were the ones to spend the time, effort, and money to reconstruct it. It's hardly fair for the Macedonians to spend all that time reconstructing it when the lazy Greeks try to steal it away from them by seeding the territory with Greeks to ofset the Macedonian population. The Greeks should be happy with their already massive (and not to mention implausible) Empire and leave the Macedonians alone. As I said before: I seriously doubt that the Siberians can get to the former European part of the Soviet Union before the local nations are organized enough to stop them. Every one of the former Soviet states deserves to be recognized as independant. The Siberians lost the right to reclaim these states when they effectively destroyed the world as they knew it.

Yank 22:27, November 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if we're going by OTL UN standards for admission, territorial disputes can't keep a nation out. Lots of nations in the UN have territorial disputes, like Saudi Arabia and Yemen or Russia and Japan. However, the usage of the name "Macedonia" would, just as OTL. And whether the Siberians can reach all of the Former Soviet Union is irrelevant. They have a semi-legitimate territorial claim to the territory and any nation within that claimed territory would be considered an invalid breakaway state. Caeruleus 22:47, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for us, there really is not a method for adding new applicants to the organization listed on the page.

That said, it has long been canon for the USSR to be able to block the membership of countries in territory in claims, for Canada to block membership by Superior for the same reason, as well as the ANZC with that one island nation. While it makes little sense for them to do this - Yank is right in that instance - they do it anyway. Consider it like the US insistence for 20 years on keeping the RoC in the UN instead of the PRC, despite the obvious reasons why that made little sense.

With normal decisions, no one at the LoN has an outright veto, though I'm sure that some countries have big enough power blocks to prevent things they don't like from happening.

In this instance, I guess we should add a line about the SC nations holding a veto.

As for Greece blocking membership, they couldn't do it outright. But the LoN does recognize Macedonian-controlled areas of Greece - and Thrace, for that matter - as part of Greece, no matter the territory on the ground. (silly, but...) They'd simply get Canada or the Nordic Union (read: Canada) to do it instead of themselves.

Lordganon 22:50, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Application Process
With the discussion going on here lately, it occurred to me that we should sort out how new members would apply to the LoN.

Given that it has long been canon that the Siberians, ANZC, and Canadians could veto membership, that needs to be included somehow.

I propose that we add that applications go through the High Council, who must approve them. Members can vote no with no consequences, but can otherwise choose to veto new members as well, though it is fairly unusual. Suspensions of membership would go through the general assembly, however.

Thoughts?

Lordganon 07:47, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

....?

Would there be any objections if I added this to the article guys?

Lordganon 13:22, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Why would the LoN adopt application rules so radically different than that of the UN? Especially when it would be dominated by Third World countries. Unless I'm mixing up the UN admission process, which is possible. Caeruleus 21:38, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

I repeat: it has long been canon that those three nations can block membership (Superior for Canada, Former Soviet Territory for Siberia, and the Cook Islands for the ANZC.) There needs to be a listed mechanism for it, and there is not one now.

The LoN was founded through negotiating by Tonga between the SAC and ANZC - it may be dominated by otl third world countries, but that's not how it was founded.

As for the UN process:

1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states that accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations. 2. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

It's never been done before, but the bolded section, given how the Security Council works, indicates that it would be able to veto it (at least in theory). I can definitely say that expulsion of a member has to go through a council vote under Article 6, and thus subject to veto by the council, who must approve it. Logical extension of this, given the "recommendation" line is that they could in theory veto applications.

Note that three members did veto the full expulsion of South Africa in 1974. The assembly could not overturn this, but they were able to suspend its membership (atl this would be what happened to New Britain).

The only thing of this nature is the repeated applications of Taiwan being rejected. But with the "one-China" policies in place, and PRC pressure, it has actually never gotten the council. This is actually a incorrect practice on the part of the UN, as they should give it to council despite the policy, but don't, so the situation hasn't come up.

To sum it up: In theory, UN veto members could veto applications, but it just has not come up - they can, however, veto expulsions, which being the exact opposite, means that in theory they could do the same to applications.

But again, I repeat: it is already canon that this can be done, and it should be added.

Lordganon 23:23, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

If those countries can veto nations, that must mean that any continental representative on the High Council can veto a nation, though it would be rare. Though since most nations vetoed so far have been vetoed due to a direct territorial dispute with a sitting member of the council, that would be the only reason most nations would be vetoed, with some exceptions of course.

Wouldn't the LoN General Assembly have to be involved in the acceptance of new members though? Sending it only through the High Council limits it to a very select group, which I would imagine most countries would oppose. Caeruleus 00:23, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Caer - and disputes with allies would likely come into play too (i.e. Brazil vetoing someone with a dispute with Columbia, etc.), as has been the case otl with disputes (as I said, the application bit has never come up otl). And there is several nations frozen out by one of the two bodies (Sicily, Iran, etc.), likely the Council, giving its use outside of claims of the council members a bit of authority - there'll be no crazy nations like North Korea in here, lol.

With the UN, it is voted on in the Council, and only then turned to the Assembly for voting. I imagine it would be the same here, vetoes and all. Like with New Britain, for instance - they were a member of the LoN, but the assembly suspended them despite the council.

Lordganon 00:40, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Okay then. That's fine by me then. I have an issue with countries not being included because of wars, undesirable governments, disputes with allies, or other non-territorial issues, but that has nothing to do with the legal structure of the LoN so that can be discussed later. Caeruleus 00:44, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. As for the rest.... well, it is canon, so it needs to be dealt with somehow, though since it is one of the two (veto in council, or failure in the assembly) its not an issue, aside from it happening in the first place. Lordganon 01:20, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Official Membership Request
Woodbridge will be making an official request for membership of the LoN on 1st of January if that's okay Verence71 11:41, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Application for readoption!
I hereby apply for readoption of this page!

As in the last months no one has seemed to change fundamental things I would like to readopt this page in order to do a thorough page cleanup and actualization of this page to the "new" reality in 1983>Doomsday (canon content).

Thank you and Rgds, Xi&#39;Reney 09:45, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

As with the WCRB, this is a page that should remain a community page, not under any one user. Honestly, about the only thing that really needs to be added is a few states that aren't members, with the reasons why that is the case. Lordganon 10:24, June 14, 2011 (UTC)