       | Hello and welcome to the Alternate History Wiki! The Alternate History Wiki is a project for all communities concerned with creating fictional alternative histories. We hope you will feel at home here and wish you good luck contributing to our ever growing collection of alternative histories.
Regards, NuclearVacuum (talk) 13:08, November 3, 2019 (UTC) |
Re:New Union
Sorry for the confusion. I haven't been working on the New Union timeline for a few years now (hence why no updates have been made). For all intense and purposes, the timeline is frozen in the mid/late 2010s for the time being. I intend to come back and update the timeline at some point and I do have plans to rewrite much of the history and canon (to a minor degree) when that happens.
Until then, the timeline is currently closed and no additions will be accepted at this time.
If you are interested, I'm currently active on my timeline Russian America and am accepting proposals and discussions on it. If you are interested, please give it a read.
Other than that, please take care. -- NuclearVacuum 
20:24, November 3, 2019 (UTC)
Re:Football in Alaska
A discussion was actually done about this a while back (here's the link). The TL;DR version is that soccer (association football) wouldn't be as popular (being surpassed by gridiron football), but it would still have a larger following compared to the United States. The "Russian Americans" (the predominantly Slavic population) overwhelmingly supported the spread of continental sports (i.e., gridiron football and baseball) instead of their European counterparts (soccer and cricket). In contrast, the Dougs (English Alaskans) would've sup[ported the rise of those European/British counterparts.
All-in-all, I predict soccer would be most dominant in the Columbia River watershed area and devoid in the rest of the nation (comparatively speaking).
Alaska would have a national team and they would participate in FIFA. How prominent they are is up in the air as of now. My guess is that the Alaskan team has qualified for several World Cups but they have never won it themselves. For all intense and purposes, I believe they would be better than the US team, but still weaker than the most successful.
To keep things clear, the "CSKA Moscow" that has been mentioned (as far as I'm aware) is HC CSKA Moscow (not the soccer team).
If you are interested in creating an article about the national Alaskan team or its domestic league, you are more than welcome to. But please read and follow the Editorial Guidelines before doing so.
If you have any more questions, please do let me know. Have fun. -- NuclearVacuum 19:15, November 4, 2019 (UTC)
Re:DeLorean
What are you talking about?
I have zero intention of having DeLorean (ATL) being sold to anyone. -- NuclearVacuum 16:45, November 6, 2019 (UTC)
Editing Articles Without Permission
Please refrain from editing/expanding upon articles without permission. This is bad etiquette. Your recent additions to my articles have been removed. Please don't let this happen again. Thank you. -- NuclearVacuum 15:51, November 7, 2019 (UTC)
- As stated before, the New Union timeline is currently closed. I will not be accepting any new additions/edits at this time. Thank you. -- NuclearVacuum
03:42, November 8, 2019 (UTC)
- When it comes to any of the former republics of the USSR rejoining Russia in the Russian America timeline, I've already made the decision to not go through with them for various reasons. The only exception was Belarus.
- In regards to Kazakhstan, I don't believe there would be a big push to rejoin Russia. This is due to the ethnic divide and the fact that both nations would retain very good relations. If anything, Nazarbayev has gone out of his way to accommodate the Russians in Northern Kazakhstan and made the need to seek reunification with Russia unneeded. In short, why fix what wasn't broken?
- Um... yeah. I find it very likely that skyscrapers would be built in Alaska (ATL). In fact, I do have a secret project I intend to release soon that deals with this (in many respects).
Categorization and article naming
Hello,
I just message you just to make sure that you will doing the categorization and the naming of your articles properly according to this wiki rules and conventions. The categorization and the timeline name at your articles should be the same with the name of your alternate history so anyone can doing easier navigation of your pages in the future. Please make sure you do not keep insisting on categorizing differently with the name of your timeline.
FirstStooge (talk) 09:41, November 10, 2019 (UTC)
- Every new users make mistakes. In fact, any one makes mistakes. As long as someone is determined enough to learn from his/her own mistakes, he/she will be redeemed(?). What I meant is that is since your are a rookie, you will prone to do something wrong. But, that is okay. If you ask the admins for some guidances, they will be happy to help you.
- Any way, do not forget to categorize your pages according to the countries (for states) or figures (for individuals). It is for making us convenient to find the pages in similar categories (Soviet Union, for example).
- FirstStooge (talk) 09:58, November 10, 2019 (UTC)
Sino-Soviet relations
If you ask me what is my view, my personal opinion for exact, in regard of what would happened between a democratic USSR and the PRC, I will say nothing will on a par with OTL Cold War. Even in the real life, even though the Sino-Soviet relations were turbulent and never stable after the split, we never witnessed a full preparation for war between two countries, only propaganda and several imagined operations.
Economic reforms occurred between two nations will eventually bring them into closer regional cooperation because of their strategic positions in North and East Asia. Your ATL USSR is said to be an ally, or at least friendly to the United States, which China had behaved earlier during the 1970s. If both are friendly to the United States and more benefited from strategic economic cooperation in vital sectors, such as minerals and oils in Central Asia, rather than engaging in military arms, why should a Cold War happened between two nations?
China's maritime disputes with Japan and South Korea will gravitate the former closer again to the Soviet, which is more stronger and prosperous than OTL Russia. No matter how uneasy their relations which each other, Japan and South Korea will stay loyal to the United States, especially South Korea. If the USSR abandoned China and China got closer to the US instead, will the US abandoned its strategic allies Japan and South Korea? Nope. Even if that happened, Japan would severed its relations with the United States and returned to defensive re-armament for protecting themselves from China and the USSR.
You get no Cold War of course, but rather a possible scenario for World War III...
In my perspective, it will be a bit complicated. A democratic USSR will indeed having a thawed diplomatic relations with China, if China stayed same as in our real life, since they both are strategic economic partners. But, a US-friendly USSR is a diplomatic disaster and improbable even for the United States itself regardless it is a democratic country or not. I think you need to reconsider the foreign relations between the USSR and other countries and study first about the possible consequences they will have according to the geographic importance of each nation to the security and prosperity of the USSR.
Greeting,
FirstStooge (talk) 15:23, November 16, 2019 (UTC)
- That is not probable. The NAM is created for the nations that did not want to be involved in the political games between two giants and banded together to avoid be swallowed by that two powers. An economic and military giant like the surviving USSR want to join a group of smaller and weaker nations? What for?
- FirstStooge (talk) 16:43, November 16, 2019 (UTC)
- How it going to be happened?
- FirstStooge (talk) 05:11, November 17, 2019 (UTC)
Where Zhao got the confidence/support to succeed Deng from? The party members or Deng himself? Or maybe the PLA?
FirstStooge (talk) 12:59, November 17, 2019 (UTC)
- If Zhao became the leader, that will be the end of the People's Republic and China would experienced not only economic liberalization, but political democratization. While Hu Yaobang was the proponent of liberalization, Zhao was more skeptical to the old CPC establishment. He was supportive to the Tiananmen student movement which explains why Deng expelled him after 1989 and choose pragmatic but conservative Jiang, the Beijing party leader.
- If you want to save China like in our real life, Zhao is the worst choice. But, if you want to have a China, democratic, liberal and non-aligned, Zhao is your man. Unlike the USSR, the People's Republic will be no more and a democratic regime, maybe called the "Republic of China" (with different Chinese characters from Taiwan's ROC) or also maybe called simply "China", will rule the country. Tibet will be independent if Zhao does not know to engage in political talks with the Dalai Lama, but Taiwan and Hong Kong for sure will be 100% join new democratic China.
- A democratic China led by Zhao maybe will get closer to the United States, but Xinjiang will become a vital, strategic issue, so that is probable for China to say as a non-aligned nation, but having no confrontation with either the US or the USSR. And, I will say it is an interesting idea for your timeline.
- FirstStooge (talk) 15:42, November 17, 2019 (UTC)
- I am terribly sorry for a late reply. For the past two days, I have got a combination of busy and exhausted days and broken internet at home.
- Thank you for your correction. Jiang was the party's Shanghai leader, not Beijing and he is always my personal favorite among the CPC leaders, second only to Deng. His personality is TOO similar with my own. But, that is out of topics, for sure, I am sorry. In short, I am agree with you that he is too pragmatic even to the standard of present generation of CPC leadership.
- Zhu is not bad. He has a strong personality similar with the first generation of leadership. Tough, disciplined and conservative. At a very decisive event when China turned capitalist during the 1990s, I think he is a better alternative than Jiang. Jiang is a master of diplomacy and ruled by balancing powers here and there, through compromises rather than discipline, but Zhu will be more heavy-handed management in tradition with old party veterans which would be good for preserving the party leadership over the Chinese state and society.
- FirstStooge (talk) 12:09, November 19, 2019 (UTC)
If the economic reforms are successful enough, they will not need someone who prefers law and order (Putin), elitist but populist (Sobchak and his daughter), or completely egomaniac (Zhirinovsky). Nemtsov and Kudrin are better candidates in my opinion, especially Kudrin who a can your ATL Medvedev for his economic administration competence.
FirstStooge (talk) 13:24, November 23, 2019 (UTC)
Re:Consultation
What specifically do you want me to comment on? -- NuclearVacuum 16:40, November 16, 2019 (UTC)
Re:President of the USSR
I think I prefer a Central Asian (Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Turkmen, or else) rather than a Mongolian to the office. Most of the Central Asian leaders are maybe autocrats or heavy-handed, but some of them are rather competent administrators in economic management. They are conservatives socially, but liberal economically which I think is better for the Soviet economic growth. - FirstStooge (talk) 16:28, December 5, 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that is why they are conservatives. Why do you think an old politician can not be elected as a president in a democratic nation? If most of the population favors a social conservative policy, such as stability or security, they will elect the preferred candidates no matter how old they are. Even Trump was elected in his 70s.
- Anyway, the Soviet Central Asia was called Turkestan and the Turkestan Soviet Socialist Republic did exist. Central Asia is...no. Turkestan is more appropiate. If you call them as "Central Asian", that is just like calling Mongolic peoples in the Russian Far East as "Far Easterners" which is...weird.
- - FirstStooge (talk) 05:33, December 7, 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for a late reply.
- Yes, Nazarbayev can be a sort of Lee Kuan Yew, an enlightened autocrat, which works for the betterment of his own people rather than enriched himself with high political office in exchange for stability and less political opposition.
- You may do what you pleased regarding this idea.
- - FirstStooge (talk) 10:59, December 8, 2019 (UTC)
For your first question, that is up to your preference since that is your own alternate history.
For your second question, what kind of changes do you want to do over that? I must know first before I allow you to do that.
- FirstStooge (talk) 16:18, December 11, 2019 (UTC)
- And the Latvian SSR too.
- I am afraid I can not allow you to edit my map since everything is still unestablished right now. If you read my ATL USSR, you will find too that it does not contain Lithuania and Estonia as well as Tannu-Tuva since I made them as the Soviet-influenced satellite states, rather than blatantly as the soviet republics within the Soviet Union.
- - FirstStooge (talk) 02:51, December 13, 2019 (UTC)
Re:Mishutin
I'm sorry for being away for weeks and replying so late.
He does not have any independent power base and kind of technocrat loyal to Putin in real life. He will be a good "instrument" for any true leader of the state, but never a real leader of government. He has no great stature or popularity among the common Russians. That is up to you to make him a prime minister/premier or not.
FirstStooge (talk) 15:50, January 27, 2020 (UTC)
Re: Admission for WFAC
Dear 1234chernobyl
Thank you for your interest in my timeline.
You are more than welcome to contribute to the timeline - please feel free to dig in. If you have any question relating to how it should fit within the timeline as a whole (as there are some holes still to be filled) please feel free to ask. Realismadder (talk) 14:39, February 26, 2020 (UTC)
Dear 1234chernobyl!
Of course you can use the picture.
Maybe (but I don't insist) you could somehow mention that it is from my scenario, but, of course, you don't have to.
Greetings,
Trencsmark
Re:China
Just for clarification, I'm not the head of this Wiki. I'm simply an admin and work with others and decisions are made collectively.
Also, please clarify what you are asking me. I don't have any recollection of the topic at hand.
Thank you. -- NuclearVacuum 16:35, March 20, 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. I'm not an expert on pandemics, so I'm probably not the best person to ask on how a democratic China would handle such a situation. If I had to guess (this is 100% my opinion), perhaps the situation would be better in the long run. A democratic China would be more open for international assistance. More transparency would also better prep the world for the pandemic.
- Again, I'm not too engaged on this. But I hope this helps. -- NuclearVacuum 16:53, March 21, 2020 (UTC)
Hello I anwerser on your request to join your to join UN simulator. 1.It isn't mine. 2.You don't need anyone's consent to join.Just need to write your nickname next to country you want to take.
Re:Nazarbayev
Can you provide a link to this information? -- NuclearVacuum 02:46, April 19, 2020 (UTC)
- If that's what was discussed, than it's probably true.
- As for whether I find Nazerbayev a good candidate, I can't say. The fact that he remained in power until just recently, I don't find him too trustworthy (at least IMO). But given the butterflies of a successful New Union Treaty, things could be very different. -- NuclearVacuum 21:22, April 19, 2020 (UTC)
Re:Reform faction
There were quite a few in the waning years of the USSR that favored reforms. Excluding Gorbachev, the ones that come to mind are:
- Eduard Shevardnadze of Georgia
- Askar Akayev of Kyrgyzstan
- Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan
- Nikolai Ryzhkov
- Grigory Yavlinsky
The problem with a few of them is that they gradually became complacent in their new roles and became authoritarian over time. You could chalk this up to the chaotic situation they were put in (ruling new nations and all), but take this with a grain of salt. -- NuclearVacuum 20:01, May 11, 2020 (UTC)
Việt Nam Dân Quốc
I used "Việt Nam Dân Quốc" rather than "Việt Nam Cộng Hòa" because in my timeline Vietnam was invaded by the Chinese Kuomintang rather than the Japanese.
In Chinese language, there are two ways for writing "republic", which is "mínguó" (民國) and "gònghéguó" (共和國). The first compound, which means "people's state", was preferred by the Kuomintang since it is an opposite of "dìguó" (帝国, "empire"), reflecting its anti-imperial agenda and contrasting between the character "民" (people) and "帝" (emperor). That is why it is still used to write the "Republic of China" (中華民國) in Taiwan. The similar word, "minguk", is also used by South Korea for its official name "Republic of Korea" (대한민국/大韓民國 Daehan Minguk).
The second compound (共和國) means "state of togetherness and harmony", a translation of Latin res publica (共和). It is created in Japan to express a government without any king, referring to the Gonghe Regency, a historical period in Chinese history when King Li of Zhou was ousted and thus resulted to a "kingdom without king." This word is favored more by the left-wing parties in East Asia in the 1930s and the 1940s, hence why it is used by People's Republic of China (中华人民共和国 Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó) and North Korea (조선민주주의인민공화국/朝鮮民主主義人民共和國 Joseon Minjujui Inmin Gonghwaguk) right now.
Since in my timeline, the Vietnamese Nationalist Party were in power and influenced heavily by the Chinese Kuomintang, there is no way they would used "cộng hòa" or "cộng hòa quốc", rather they would used "dân quốc", the Sino-Vietnamese reading of "mínguó" (民國).
- FirstStooge (talk) 14:22, May 16, 2020 (UTC)
I know, but, well, Nicu is dead. A dead man can not be dictator right now o_0"
- FirstStooge (talk) 15:27, May 16, 2020 (UTC)
To be honest why I decided to keep the Ceausescus on my timeline is because I want to make Romania a "Europe's North Korea", hampered by nationalistic and pseudo-fascistic tendencies, hereditary leaderships and nuclear ownership (Valentin is a nuclear physicist, remember?). Nicolae was really admiring Kim Il-sung and the Juche idea and he (and his descendants) are the "best" persons to keep everything "worse" in Romania, something that the surviving Soviet Union can not even help them.
Apostol, on other hand, was in some sense a centrist, supporting between pro-Soviet line and an independent line. He was not even a hard-line, counter-reformist, but still a Soviet loyalist. In short, he was a political opportunist. If Romania was ruled by Apostol's line, it will put it together in line with East Germany and Poland. Of course, there would be no pseudo-fascism in Romania imposed by Ceausescu. Romania would be a mediocre communist country that benefited by the Soviet economic reforms if the USSR decided to become like China. But, being lenient? I don't think that would be happened even with Apostol.
The only way to make the communist rule in Romania more lenient is to find someone who either like Alexander Dubcek (liberal humanist) or Imre Nagy (open-minded pragmatist). Being a reformist or pro-market only is not enough. Even Ceausescu was a promising reformist at the very start, yet he grown to be more conservative, ideological and even deranged nationalist as the time progressed. Romania needs a humanistic or pragmatic communist leader if they want a lenient communist rule. I don't think there was any "Romania's Deng Xiaoping", but if you can find it, that was good. Other than that, Romania will still be a miserable country today.
- FirstStooge (talk) 04:46, May 18, 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely an opportunist, even an incompetent one.
- FirstStooge (talk) 22:19, May 19, 2020 (UTC)
Sergei Kirov
Actually I am kind of hesitating in telling you regarding what would happened to the Soviet Union if Kirov survived, since that is also a central story in my timeline (lol, no just kidding).
Well, one thing for sure is Kirov was a Stalinist, although not a hard-liner, but still he was an ardent supporter and close protege of our Dear Comrade Stalin, the Architect of Progressive Humanity!
Pardon my mood, it is the one of the last days of Ramadhan, so my mood is kind of up and down with a glace of dry humour. I am just too hungry and tired lately ^^"
Anyway, if he survived, Kirov would continued most of Stalin's policies, especially in the foreign policy. Cold War would be remained. But, he was not a dogmatist, not a crazy-minded ideological Communist, like Mao Zedong, Enver Hoxha or Kim Il-sung. Why? Because he was corrupt. Yes, he was not an antithesis of Stalin: democratic, humanistic or liberal. His rule in Leningrad was lenient not because he disliked the Party doctrine, but because he accepted bribes and favors from the Leningrad citizens to relax several strict rules imposed by Stalin. His motives were not ideologically driven, but rather than from personal benefits.
Ironically, Kirov was loved because he was corrupt; he was not humanistic, but simply a human. Just like how the younger Chinese generations like Jiang Zemin more than Xi Jinping. Not because he was democratic or competent, but rather because Jiang was more corrupt rather than tyrannical. He did not bothering other people's business, only his. In such authoritarian governments, corrupt politicians who enriched themselves in return to give their people certain extent of liberties are more liked than the ideological and disciplined ones. Kirov, well, would not mind at all about his people's affairs as long as he was happy with his position at the top.
So, if Kirov survived, the Thaw of 1950s would still happened. Stalinism would be abandoned, but Stalin himself would not be denounced openly after his death as what Khrushchev did in real life. Foreign policies would remained, but economic policies would become more liberal and quasi-capitalistic, although not a complete privatization. Why is that possible for economic reform under Kirov? Foreign investments and economic growth would provided a collusion between the state, the Party and the private corporations. The party leaders would enjoyed luxuries and bribes provided by the capitals for them rather than annihilated them, especially the foreign ones.
- FirstStooge (talk) 03:39, May 22, 2020 (UTC)
Not so much information I can dig for Fazekas, which indicating he was not-so-important party officials during his period. He turned to humanism and a little bit of conservatism after the democratization of Romania, but never reached the level of Dubcek. So, he is a so-and-so for me.
- FirstStooge (talk) 19:20, May 27, 2020 (UTC)
Social media
I apologize, but I have quitting SNS about a year ago. I've deleted several of my online accounts lately after I graduated from college, because I want to have a peaceful life. Online socialization is a bit tiring for me ^^"
Don't worry about keep messaging me here. It is the correct place to ask and discuss with each others about Alternate History. So, that's fine, no one is felt disturbed.
Uhmm, about Romanian history, I'm not an expert about it. I've read about Carol I and Ceausescu, but not very much about others (mostly my information came from Wikipedia). But my favorite historical Romanian personality is always Petru Groza. He was non-communist, but played key parts in the creation of Communist Romania more than the Romanian communists themselves.
Groza is always an enigmatic personality for me. He was a wealthy landowner and prominent figure in the Romanian Orthodoxy, yet was so eager in defending communist ideals. Never joined the Communist Party, yet was more Stalinist than the Romanian Communist leadership itself. Without him, that would be more difficult for the Communists to consolidate themselves in Romania. Stern and ambitious, his appearance even looked like Matyas Rakosi for me!
- FirstStooge (talk) 03:39, May 31, 2020 (UTC)
Four Points of Your Question
- Nope, he would belonged to the Agrarian movement of Aleksandr Stamboliyski. The Agrarians were once the most possible rival of the Communist in real life because they have strong base among the peasantry in contrast of the industrial workers. If there is no Bolshevism, communism would be no be as stronger as in OTL and Agrarianism will prevailed. Groza would for sure joined it
- Uh...Russia and Japan were practically allies during World War I. Why would the Russians considered to occupy Honshu? Japan virtually also has no republican movement before World War II. With no Bolshevik revolution, there would be no anti-Tenno movement that led by the Japanese Communist Party. Even the Social Democrats, the legal left-wing party in Imperial Japan, were simply advocated democratization on the British model, but no republicanism. I do not think any chance Japan would became a republic if Russia won the war as a part of Allied Powers
- Nope. But socialism will flourished since Mussolini was once a fanatic member of the Italian Socialist Party, but turned right after his party opposed the war. If the post-war treaties were more lenient, Mussolini would simply took over the ISP and the other socialist parties will either turned to Mussolini's direction or else. Remember, Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British Fascists, was once a member of Labour Party. Several fascists were once belonged to the socialist movement. Even the Bolsheviks were more closer to the Fascists than the Social Democrats in practice and dogmas.
- Yes, of course. Party? They will be more possible to be partyless than belonged to a specific political organization. They will be like radical officers of the Imperial Japanese Army during the 1936 rebellions that killed "corrupt politicians and businessmen". The closest comparison they would be is the Sanacja movement in Poland, led by Marshal Pilsudki, an authoritarian socialist movement supported by a certain anti-politician element of the armed forces.
FirstStooge (talk) 04:24, June 7, 2020 (UTC)
Re:About Trong
- When I saw President Trong for the first time, there is one person I reminded with him: President Moon Jae-in of South Korea. You are correct regarding his initial impression: a moderate. In my TL, Trong can be a student activist when he was young, so his political orientation remains left-wing when he is older. However, I don't think he belong to a democratic socialist party, but rather a liberal one. I planned to name the party "Democratic Party of Vietnam" (Dang Dan chu Viet Nam) in reminiscence of the Indonesian Democratic Party - Struggle and the Minjoo Party of Korea, current governing parties of Indonesia and South Korea, respectively. The DPV would be the ideological successor of People's Democratic Rally (Rassemblement democratique populaire, RDP), a social democratic party in my TL which led by Prince Nguyen Phuc Vinh San (OTL Emperor Duy Tan).
- I don't have any comment to Hoan since he was a hard-liner communist in possible Maoist line. He would turned patriotic by the 1960s in my timeline, just like the leaders of PKI in OTL 1960s Indonesia since there will be no communist China. But, Nguyen Ha Phan is an interesting case. What I learned is he was accused as the CIA agent within the Communist Party. Well, that is not impossible thing since here in Indonesia, we have Adam Malik. Malik was the member of Murba Party, a national-communist party and rival of the PKI. Yet, the party members were included in Suharto's government after the 1965 incident mostly because Malik was a US agent.
- I planned my OTL Vietnam to follow the historical development of Indonesia. By the 1960s, the Communist Party strengthened by a political line independent of Moscow. Ho Chi Minh was either died of malaria in 1941 or deprived of the leadership in 1948 by the younger generation of leaders. Then, an element of Communist Party of Vietnam rebelled, resulting to a counter-rebellion by the Vietnamese Army. The Communists got swept up by the Army and an Army dictatorship ruled for decades. My candidate for Vietnam's Suharto is Nguyen Cao Ky, but I open to another candidate. Maybe there was a Vietnam's Park Chung-hee too, but I am still not knowing about him yet.
-- FirstStooge (talk) 07:59, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
Long answers
I noticed your messages days ago, but I can't reply it immediately for two reasons: (1) I was too concentrating with my own contents on ATL Vietnam so I would ignoring anything before my inspiration get washed away and (2) I have a load of works to do offline throughout this week. However, for a little break right now, I will response to your messages.
- In regard of the ATL Vietnamese Army, the ideological differences between the officers would not be too contrasting, since there is no Vietminh existed. The Vietminh by any virtue, regardless of ideology it possessed, was a patriotic organization for most of the Vietnamese people. Whatever the accusations overseas Vietnamese (especially from the South) have in regard of Chairman Ho, his vision for independence struggle was sincerely patriotic. So, many officers of the PAVN would still find their ways in my ATL Vietnam, unless they rebelled, since they were less influenced by Marxism-Leninism than by patriotic feeling. However, I can't decide yet which ones that would rose into power in TTL, since it depends on how write the progressing narratives on the Vietnamese history.
- Nguyen Ha Phan would be an interesting addition in the case I need to write something full of trouble in my ATL Vietnam. I had decided to make him my ATL Vietnam's Adam Malik, a former Marxist who defected to the right-wing, pro-American cause.
- About Đổng, yes he will learned so much from Japan since it is the TTL regional superpower over Asia. The studies on the Japanese and American military tactics and organizations will be adopted by the Vietnamese officers in my TL, especially after the 1948 reorganization, that shifted away the Army's orientation from the Soviet model to the Western model. In my perspective, Đổng was a politically neutral officer, but became anti-communist as he wanted a non-political armed forces or maybe wanted armed forces as a "balancing power" to the political parties in my ATL Vietnam.
- Lê Trọng Tấn is indeed should belonged to the pro-Duy Tan group of army officers since he would still ideologically inclined toward left-wing groups, but not the Communists. He can be a military associate of Đổng in the development of the Vietnamese Armed Forces and retired peacefully as a respected military general at the end.
- I really wanted to learn about Thâu, but the materials are too scarce, even from within Vietnam. Thâu was a part of "losing side" before the eyes of ruling Communist Party and studies about him are really hard to find. For me, he is like Tan Malaka, while Ho is like Alimin. Tan was a founder and one-time leader of Indonesian Communist Party, but was alienated by his comrades due to his visionary yet idealistic views. At the end, Tan stood against the PKI, while became a menace to the Socialist leaders, such as Sutan Sjahrir or Amir Sjarifuddin, during the Indonesian National Revolution. Alimin, on other hand, degraded into a party veteran and respected as a senior nationalist who survived colonial era, independence war and even parliamentary democracy era. Both were made the National Heroes of Indonesia in 1964 although their ideology soon made forbidden a year later.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 09:22, June 20, 2020 (UTC)
Translation
Well, for first, I need to know what's your intention to translate my article and where is you going to post it. That's a bit sensitive matter since my articles had been plagiarized heavily about 4-5 years ago and it caused great damage not only to my works, but also to this community. I can allow you to translate it as long as you communicate clearly with me. For me, the clarity of intention is matter so much. I will be happy if anyone want to learn alternate history from my works that I have developed for about eight years (I was a rookie too once lol).
--- FirstStooge (talk) 15:39, June 23, 2020 (UTC)
Answers to Comparisons
That is...a very hard question since I did not studying of power relations in Vietnam beyond the 1970s. It is rather unfamilar for me with such subjects about which ones become here and there in the following party congress of the CPV. However, I remembered a certain Deputy PM who loves to tour provinces and gives fluent English speeches (Vu Duc Dam, I presume?). I think he has a promising future career within the party and the government.
For the second question, I think it depends. In my TL, I am certain that Vietnam will remains a democracy as Prince Vinh San (Duy Tan) has a pro-Western democratic outlook compared to Diem or Prince Vin Thuy (Bao Dai). Duy Tan will certainly returned to the throne since his lineage prevailed over Bao Dai (his great-grandfather, Prince Hong Y, was older than Bao Dai's great grandfather, Prince Hong Cai).
Unlike Bhumibol, who was passive and conservative, or Sihanouk, who was eccentric and eclectic, Duy Tan was more Western and progressive. Duy Tan was the key for further democratization in Vietnam and a balancing figure between political parties and the armed forces. As long as he was the monarch, that was unlikely for a coup organized by the army since the army leadership was certainly loyal to him.
Uhmm...I do not understand what you meant by the Japanese specialists will helped the Vietnamese workers be disciplined? Is that political advisors or industrial experts you referred here?
--- FirstStooge (talk) 09:49, June 27, 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that any Japanese specialist will have significant impacts to the Vietnamese working class. The ideological foundation of my ATL Japan is the strong middle-class society. The creation of prosperous middle-class will be the focus of economic development in TTL Vietnam. So, the Japanese experts will be helpful in creating national industries in Vietnam to increase employment.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the state sectors will remained dominant there, both with the helps of Japanese and Soviet engineers. However, as capitals gathered by the 1970s, Vietnam will entered new era where private corporations owned by the Vietnamese nationals arose. If political stability prevailed over factional fightings, Vietnam will became TTL version of Singapore.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 14:29, June 27, 2020 (UTC)
Well, it will be simply like in OTL since TTL China had having two-child policy, rather than one-child, then Vietnam will follows. I think with better health service and health-related infrastructure, that is possible for Vietnam to surpress the birth rate by the 1980s and the 1990s when it became prosperous enough and the workforce demanded more women to work rather than to stay at home. I don't think abortion will be easily legal TTL as when the middle-class expanded, some middle-class will converted to Catholicism. Catholicism is the main barrier for the Philippines to make abortion legal there.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 08:07, June 28, 2020 (UTC)
CPV political notables
Well let me answer one by one in regard of fates of several CPV notables.
- Hoang Van Hoan - Chairman Ho's loyalist. Well of course he will not rose as high-ranking political figures TTL, but his strong defense of Chinese community would made him wealthy and influential in the foreign affairs since he would became a bridge between the Vietnamese and the Chinese governments in dealing with business contracts and bilateral trade. He, ironically, would be one of the richest Vietnamese by the 1970s due to his strong pro-Chinese stance and died comfortably and filthy rich (lol).
- To Huu - A left-wing cultural activist. Without the CPV rule, he would indeed staying as a cultural activist and also a leftist. Not a chance for him as politician, but he would be indeed a nuisance for the military regime. Compared with Bach, Huu would be stubborn and highly oppositional with the armed forces.
- Pham Hung - A long-time Communist. Will remained a Communist TTL, but never became a major politician in any sense. If the military ruled Vietnam TTL, he would get killed immediately for sure.
- Dao Duy Tung - If the CPV is exist TTL even as a minor political power, he would remained and even became a long-time leader of the party. If the CPV fled overseas like the Communist Party of Burma in OTL, he would led it until his death.
- Tran Xuan Bach - Will never joined the Communist Party if the party not ruled. May joined the People's Democratic Rally instead and active as a pro-democracy activist until his death. Unlike in OTL, he would be respected due to his opposition to the military rule in Vietnam.
- Nguyen Ha Phan - An opportunist, you may found him in a right-wing political party in the 1960s until his death if I want.
- Ho Duc Viet - He was a technocrat by any sense and would rose into power after the 1970s, especially when the military regime prevailed. However, he has a potential to become a progressive moderate politician: not too leftist, but not supporting the military either.
- Dinh La Thang - He has a potential as an oligarch like in the sense of Russian business oligarchy. His business-mindedness is sharp and may still involved in a corruption scandal in TTL.
In regard of Dam, what you have explained to me are the exact reasons why I put him into the Premiership in my ATL Vietnam. A technocrat, not an ideological Communist.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 16:15, July 3, 2020 (UTC)
Republic of South East Asia
Hello chernobyl. I see you added Republic of South East Asia (Brotherhood and Unity!) to Category:Delete. Before I delete it, I just want to make sure that this was because you want it gone, and it's not just an accident. Normally to delete a page, you put {{delete|author request}} at the top, which both puts it in the Delete category and adds a message to the top. So you want Republic of South East Asia deleted? Benkarnell (talk) 13:26, July 5, 2020 (UTC)
The Terrorists and the West Map Game is now open, please make your actions and have a good time.
Leonidas huh (talk) 14:08, July 5, 2020 (UTC)
Chào anh, em để ý anh là một trong số những người Việt mà sống ở nước ta duy nhất ở đây; liệu anh có project nào về lịch sử nước ta hoặc có ý định tham gia cái Map game nào không? FroopyZombie (talk) 15:04, July 5, 2020 (UTC)
Chào anh, lại là em đây, cho em hỏi liệu anh có project nào về lịch sử nước ta không nhỉ? em thấy anh hoạt động cũng khá là tích cực trên trang này. FroopyZombie (talk) 10:29, July 11, 2020 (UTC)
A very late reply
Finally, it is Sunday night and I get some times to take a break from my real-life works. Also, I have been focusing on Scandinavia and Madagascar lately, so I've a quite few times to learn or study more about Vietnam etc.
Yes, Thang will be a boss of mega-corporate for sure, not an owner, but rather an experienced businessman. Such a quite feat for someone who have became a member of a communist party in real life to have such good (and dirty) business-mindedness like him.
About Thau, yes you are correct. History favors the winners, they say. Thau was at the losing side of Vietnam's history, just like Diem, Bao and others, regardless of his political positions. There are few studies about him exist and it is hard to grasp a full picture of his life, thought and political activities during his lifetime. Because that will be interesting to see how different will be for the Vietnamese Communists if certain different direction taken during this period, especially with the circumstances like in my timeline.
Regarding the Czechoslovakian communists, all of the figures you have written, except Dubcek, by minimum standard were the Soviet loyalists. Husak, however, held a distinction for being a political opportunist. When the tide was toward reforms, he sided with it. But, when invasion from the Soviets was apparent, he changed his stance.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 13:08, July 12, 2020 (UTC)
The Terrorists and the West
Do you mean, can a player play as two nations? Is so its no unless its a colonial nation.
Leonidas huh (talk) 11:40, July 15, 2020 (UTC)
Wait for a while
For now, I can not have a time to research in regard of your questions. I will spare my time during the weekend to research about the Czechoslovakian communists. I have been immersed about post-WWI caliphates, Hejaz and Libya, my flow of experience is at its highest now. Also, I have working a lot in real life so far and I believe things will got done in Friday or Saturday, so I can not reply so much to you for now.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 14:29, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
The Ashes of Rome II Map Game
The Terrorists and the West was a fluke, i felt like it did not get the right start up so i have revived a much loved Map Game, The Ashes of Rome, i was just wondering if you would be intrested in joining as we are about to have our first turn.
Leonidas huh (talk) 11:31, July 19, 2020 (UTC)
Yes, just go on the page and put your name next to where it says Visagothic Kingdom.
Leonidas huh (talk) 12:11, July 19, 2020 (UTC)
Czechoslovakia (and Romania)
Finally, I got my free time right now. Yes, it is Sunday night, but it is better than never ^^"
Well, we must first understand the Czechoslovakian mentality first. Dubcek is a Slovak, so are Husak and Vladimir Clementis. Strougal is a Czech, Kolder is a Czech, so are Novotny and Gottwald. It is indeed a very, very simplistic categorization, but it can helps us to understand the reformism of KSC at its best.
Except for several exceptions such as Bilek, the reformist and conservative lines within the KSC were divided along the ethnic identities. Czech leaders were more prone to the Soviet line, while Slovak leaders were more independent partly because strong association between Catholicism and Slovakian cultural identity. The Slovaks were more resistant to the orthodox pro-Soviet, such as state atheism or collectivization, that's why Slovak communists were more independent-minded than their Czech counterparts. On other hand, the Czechs are one of the most atheistic societies even in present OTL.
Similar mentality was also existed among the Polish and Hungarians where the Catholic Church as a barrier against Communism. Even the most independent-minded Communists were drawn from these two cultures, say Gomulka and Nagy. In addition, the Czechoslovakians are not similar with the Yugoslavians or the Greater Russians. They were more liberal in nature and also more humanistic. The influence of democratic thinkings from western Europe and Germany were more felt there compared to their Southern and Eastern brethrens, resulted to a liberal tendency of the Czechs and the Slovaks.
Dubcek's humanistic socialism was rooted deeply on that liberal tradition while his independence from Soviet line was resulted from his Catholic-influenced Slovak upbringing. Yes, Dubcek never embraced Catholicism until his death, but still this cultural mentality exists among the Slovak communists. Added by the experience during his younger years in the Soviet Union, Dubcek was know what is right or wrong or whether any policy imposed by the Soviets disastrous to his people. Ernst Reuter of West Berlin and Nagy Imre of Hungary also experienced harsh living in the Soviet similar to Dubcek and they too turned liberal and even anti-Soviet at some point.
Husak too at some point was as humanistic as Dubcek, atlhough, unlike Dubcek, he had no courage at all against the Soviet might. My point is the Czechoslovakians were the most liberal and reformist society within the Communist bloc. If the Soviets became more reformist, Czechoslovakia will never be more pleased to turn more liberal and even most pro-Soviet leaders will eventually turn to liberal Communism too at the best, not only Dubcek or Hussak.
Isn't Ion Iliescu was a reformist too before he abandoned Communism and switched to democratic socialism during the revolution? Not a best leader indeed, but quite sane one compared to the Ceausescus and maybe able to stir the country more friendly with the West. Such a good pragmatic, not the cleanest one for sure.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 15:18, July 19, 2020 (UTC)
The signatories of the Letter of the Six were at any sense reformists to Ceausescu's insanity even as some of them were gripped hard to the Soviet influence at the past. That showed us how fluid politics really is. One day you are a conservative, next day you are a revolutionary, depending on how the people perceives.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 16:13, July 19, 2020 (UTC)
That's what I have done for past ten years (lol). Politically, Indonesia is a real mess right now. Younger people around my generation have been more liberal than the older generations (yes, the boomers lol). I am too a liberal myself. However, as we are growing liberal, the reaction of course is also stronger. Hard-line Islamist groups infiltrated colleges and charities, intoxicating people with radical doctrines here and there. My region is one of the most conservative provinces, so around me there are a LOT of anti-government talks, including my parents.
I voted for Joko Widodo (we called him Jokowi or some affectionately Pakde, which meant "Uncle") in the past year election. Yet, I am not his staunch supporter. So many things I have been differed from his policies because well I am a critical person. But, the Islamists are really not joking. They REALLY hate freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. They are WORSE than Jokowi's policies, so that's why I tend to be more careful politically. Sometimes criticism against Jokowi is mixed with their anti-liberal tendencies, which made me afraid to become more politically active lately.
Then I realized how pragmatic I am.
We have a late comedian named Dono, a member of comedy group Warkop DKI. He, however, was a sharp social observant as he educated in sociology. Dono once wrote an article in the 1990s about why the Indonesian Polices corrupt or not as good as we expected. He concluded that the life itself is harsh. The polices did not enriched themselves, but they did to survive. Being not corrupt is not as easy as we can say. It is very humane thing and the root of the problem is very deep entrenched.
At that point, I stopped to criticize. Nothing is infallible, including the government, no matter how not agreeable their policies are. Sometimes, there are worse things will happened if that criticism turns into hatred. The changes are a long-term and should be done throughout education rather demonstrations or riots. Like former Uruguayan President Jose Mujica said, even a former radical like himself was entrapped by his position at the top. Jokowi is like that too. No matter how good his personal values are, he is a "prisoner" at a jail named the Presidency.
Then, I stopped to expect anything, not with an apathy, but rather with a sane realization. I can not stop or fix anything by myself, but I hope there is a way to do that, no matter how slow or how far in future it will be. I rather defend democracy even with such not infallible institutions rather have to accept Islamist tyranny and fanaticism that will leave me suffocated. I am a Muslim myself, but I detest fanaticism or religious sentiments that harbored by such groups. Pragmatism is not a choice for me now, it is the life itself.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 16:50, July 19, 2020 (UTC)
The Ashes of Rome II
Can we continue diplomacy at some point, i have stated my demands on the main page, also, if you have discord then here is the invite to our server. https://discord.gg/kZybnF
TAoR II
Sure, i will commence the invasion in 515/
Leonidas huh (talk) 16:50, July 23, 2020 (UTC)
The Ashes of Rome II
The map game has ended due to inactivity, i was wondering if you would like to join in on making a collab timeline based on TAoR II with me and two other guys. If you would like to join in could you tell me your discord tag so i can add you to the chat.
Leonidas huh (talk) 11:30, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
Ion Gheorghe Maurer
Today is the Eid al-Adha, so I can finally take a breath from all of my works right now.
Like what I always said to you: any Romanian leaders aside of the Ceausescus were sane, despite how mediocre they would be. Maurer is the prime example how one can be saner than Ceausescu but will be a really, really mediocre leader if he ascended to the General-Secretary post. He would be depended so much on the Soviets, strengthened ties with other Comecon member states but not with China and DPRK. Then...just it! He had no reformist mentality (even Ceausescu having it during his early years as leader). Then the country would gradually degenerated into a gerontocracy of senior party leaders.
Democratic reforms would be easier. No massive demonstrations here and there. Only increasingly senile party leaders, some may died. Then younger party leaders took the leadership and slowly dismantled the people's democratic state into a liberal democracy. No delusional supreme leader ever giving speech to angry demonstrators, assumed they supported his measures rather against him. Well, the positive side with Maurer on top is probably no bloodshed would be happened, I presume.
--FirstStooge (talk) 04:25, July 31, 2020 (UTC)
Re:Joining Risk! Game
Hello! Welcome to the Wiki,
All province numbers are given on the province map shown under the "Maps" section of the page. Here is an excerpt of the map in the region you are asking for:
Let me know if you have any other questions Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 14:23, August 2, 2020 (UTC)
Re:Wait
Some yes, some no. Well, Khrushchev once danced at the dinner table like a hysteric overweight bear(!) and Beria loyally carried the execution orders for their beloved leader, the architect of Communism, leader of progressive humanity, Comrade Iosif Stalin. Then, what they did to his legacies after his death? You guess it.
Praised Ceausescu when he was still around and alive is a sane thing for all Romanian politicians who wanted to survive during that period. Ceausescu, on other hand, became increasingly having delusions of grandeur, placing himself among the pantheon of great Romanian heroes and rulers. That is definitely an insanity.
-- FirstStooge (talk) 10:31, August 5, 2020 (UTC)
Gheorghiu-Dej was never a staunch Stalinist, although really loyal to the Soviets. He even purged hard-liners like Ana Pauker. Pirvulescu was Gheorgiu-Dej's loyalist and I assume he had a quite distaste of Stalin-like personality cult of Ceausescu. At the age of 84, he had nothing to lose by throwing such gamble in criticizing Ceausescu, openly. In fact he was right, the glorification of Ceausescu tainted Ceausescu personally with the Party and the fall of Ceausescu indeed followed by the collapse of party regime because it have become so much associated with Ceausescu's ideas and cults. I think you are correct in calling Pirvulescu "a man who was right at the wrong time".
-- FirstStooge (talk) 02:36, August 7, 2020 (UTC)
Regarding Vietnam
Excuse me, could you please leave the southern Tip of the Viet coast for me? DaJovannicEmpire (talk) 05:06, August 9, 2020 (UTC) (Singapore)
Yes, you may Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 03:00, August 12, 2020 (UTC)
We will need to work together. The Maravi Ascendency is threatening India and South East Asia with his demands. DaJovannicEmpire (talk) 09:56, August 13, 2020 (UTC)
He has demanded that india and SEA is his. lets stock up troops and face him. DaJovannicEmpire (talk) 14:23, August 14, 2020 (UTC)
