Country Descriptions

[ptan54]

Warlord China

Since the mid Qing Dynasty, central authority had been slowly eroded as provincial governors and generals increasingly took matters into their own hands. Full scale warlordism happened with the collapse of the imperium, with provincial governors declaring their independence across central and southern China in late 1911. With the formal establishment of the Republic of China, a semblance of central government appeared, although its grip on power was tenuous to say the least. Outside Beijing, and outside the territory patrolled by Yuan Shikai's Beiyang army, loyalty was mere lipservice. With the death of Yuan Shikai in 1916, all appearance of cohesion disintegrated, and China was thrown into ruins with provincial and subprovincial warlords vying for local or even national dominance. The era of the warlords had begun.

 

[Allenby]

Ulster

After the suppression of a rebellion in 1649, Ulster was settled by English and Scottish Protestants. Serious difficulties between the Catholic and Protestant communities flared up in the 19th century, alongside the rise of Irish nationalism. While there was strong support for Home Rule in much of the south of Ireland, Protestant dominated Ulster was equally vociferous in its desire to not be ruled by a Catholic majority in Dublin. The House of Commons rejected Prime Minister Gladstone’s First Home Rule Bill in 1886 by 343 votes to 313, with Conservatives and Liberal Unionists in opposition. The Second Home Rule Bill of 1893 was passed by the House of Commons, but rejected by the House of Lords. On both occasions, the Ulsterman had vowed to oppose any decision to give power to Dublin by force, but this necessity was negated by the failure of the Home Rule bills, as well as the dominance of the Conservative Party in government after the fall of Gladstone’s government. In the meantime, Belfast experienced both rapid growth as well as demographic polarisation. While the cotton industry grew, opportunities in engineering and shipbuilding drew in people from the countryside, and alongside it, sectarianism that split the city into Protestant and Catholic areas, and led to sporadic rioting in the late 19th century. After 1906, the Liberal government in Westminster had the benefit of a huge majority in the House of Commons, and was thus not reliant upon the support of the Irish nationalists. However, with the Conservatives carving away at the Liberal majority, Prime Minister Asquith once again looked towards the Irish nationalists for support, and introduced a Third Home Rule Bill in 1912. In reaction, 471,414 Ulster Unionists, led by the charismatic Sir Edward Carson signed a ‘solemn covenant’ to defeat Home Rule, gaining significant support from leading Conservatives, Andrew Bonar Law and F.E. Smith. Whilst the Republicans took up arms in the form of the Irish Volunteers, the Ulster Volunteer Force began to grow, with Carson claiming that ‘we are ready, strike when you please’. In 1914, the size of the UVF began to reach 100,000 men…

 

[Johan Elisson]

Added.

/Johan

 

[Gwalcmai]

A very minor thing I just noticed. Observe the difference:

It's so minor, in fact, that I felt I had to signal it.

So, were you aware you could do this?

And another thing, I'd say either the Baron of Rio Branco or the Barão do Rio Branco, not the hybrid.

 

[Johan Elisson]

How?
/Johan

 

[Gwalcmai]

How?
/Johan

Oh, right, I forgot to include that in the post.

You have to insert \n in the text where you want the line break.

This part I haven't tried, but maybe inserting \t will give you a tab indent. But including white space does that too, anyway...

 

[Johan Elisson]

Ah, good old c/c++ coding!

/Johan

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

What about Sweden?

 

[Allenby]

What about Sweden?

Yes please

 

[unmerged(24028)]

Don't know if you need a Siam Description yet:


Kingdom of Siam, the land of the White Elephant

Siam became dominant over southeast Asia in 1767 mostly through friendship with China, which no other Southeast Asian State ever thought of, or would have agreed to. Siam gained control over Laos (Loubang Proverb) in 1828 and Cambodia in 1846 both results from wars between Vietnam (Annam) and Siam.

Siam had been an isolationist state since it had secured dominance over Southeast Asia in 1767, however Treaties with Britain in 1828 and 1855 brought them out of isolation and into exclusive trade with Britain. Not long after France butted in demanding similar trade agreements, and the King of Siam gleefully agreed, believing International Rivalry would be the best way to open up his country without having it overrun by a single western Nation. And he was right, Siam was not attacked by a single nation, but rather two; France and Britain.

France took Cambodia from Siam in 1863, and soon after conquered Vietnam (Annam). France started to make a lot of fuss about the large Siamese Army in Laos (Loubang Proverb), and France declared any Siamese Army on their border would be seen as a threat, and would cause a war. These silly demands made Siam contort itself and become a sort of Marionette to French Demands. In 1893 a French Fleet sailed into the mouth of the Menam River and blockaded Bangkok, the Siamese offered to negotiate, but the French were not in a negotiating mood; before the French withdrew Siam was forced to give up all of Laos to them. In 1904 and 1907 the French demanded, and got large territorial concessions including Battambang and Angkor. The British got a concession of their own in 1909, taking away Siam's four vassal states in northern Malaya in exchange for revoking the 1855 treaty. Siam was saved from total conquest, however, by Anglo-French rivalry; Britain and France could not agree to a partitioning of the country, and both preferred an independent Siam to one dominated by the other side.

Siam entered the twentieth century clipped, but was able to keep its freedom, an accomplishment no other Southeast Asian State could match.

 

[Allenby]

Added

We still require descriptions for:

Mexico
Revolutionary Mexico
Sanusia
Estonia
Georgia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Makhnovshchina
Austria
Czechoslovakia
Hungary
Egypt
Syria
Warlord China (I think we have one for this lying somewhere...)
Manchuria (ditto..)

 

[StephenT]

Makhnovshchina:

Nestor Makhno was an experienced revolutionary and anarchist, who led the people of eastern Ukraine in a guerrilla war against the reactionary German-backed government of that state. Following the departure of the Germans, he supported the establishment of a Regional Congress of Peasants', Workers' and Insurgents' Soviets as a democratically elected government, based in the city of Gulyai Pole. To defend its territory, the Congress then organised the Revolutionary Insurgent Army, led by Makhno. Although the government was nominally run on anarchist principles of consensus, there is no doubt that Makhno was in charge. He supported many of the principles espoused by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, but opposed them over confiscation of land from peasant families and the independence of elected Soviets. For this reason, many Bolsheviks regarded him as an enemy. On the other hand, Makhno hated the Whites and everything they stood for, and was willing to fight alongside anybody who opposed the forces of reaction. Indeed, when the prominent Cossack leader Grigoriev offered to join forces with Makhno against the Reds and together seek an alliance with the White general Denikin, Makhno pulled out his revolver and shot Grigoriev dead on the spot. Makhno's followers are as fanatical and devoted to the cause as he is; but will they be able to maintain their freedom from the tyrants of both Left and Right?

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

Sweden:

The sedish did not have a happy history, in 1809, Sweden lost Finland to russia, this, however, was compensated five years later, when denmark had to cede norway to sweden, the result was a union between the two countries, the problem was that it was not a happy one, the norwegians did everything to stop the swedes, and in 1905, they broke away.

In 1914, Sweden has just gained voting rights for men, but not women, the social democrats are marching forward, although the bourgouise people are doing everything to stop it, as 1914 dawns, Sweden can either choose to enter the great war that must come, or stay outside, the germans have promised them finland if they join the war, but will the people approve to enetering the war?

 

[Allenby]

Sweden:

The sedish did not have a happy history, in 1809, Sweden lost Finland to russia, this, however, was compensated five years later, when denmark had to cede norway to sweden, the result was a union between the two countries, the problem was that it was not a happy one, the norwegians did everything to stop the swedes, and in 1905, they broke away.

In 1914, Sweden has just gained voting rights for men, but not women, the social democrats are marching forward, although the bourgouise people are doing everything to stop it, as 1914 dawns, Sweden can either choose to enter the great war that must come, or stay outside, the germans have promised them finland if they join the war, but will the people approve to enetering the war?

I've tidied it up a bit...

How does this look?

The last century has not been a happy one for Sweden. In 1809 they lost control of Finland to Russia – this however was compensated for five years later, when Denmark was compelled to cede Norway to Sweden, the result being a union between the two countries. Problematically, the union was not a happy one, and the Norwegians capped decades of sedition by breaking away in 1905.

In 1914, the Swedish government has just granted extensive suffrage for men, but women remain disenfranchised. While the Social Democrats are on the ascendancy, the bourgeoisie and middling classes attempt to stop their reforms, and as 1914 dawns, Sweden must choose between neutrality and relative obscurity or to takes sides in an increasingly polarised Europe. The Germans have secretly promised Finland in the event of war, but questions remain as to whether the public will support Sweden’s entry into what could be a devastating war.

 

[Allenby]

Sanusia

The Treaty of Lausanne, signed in the aftermath of the Italo-Turkish war, in 1912 resulted in the Ottoman Empire ceding Cyrenaica and Tripoli to the victorious Italians. To many Muslims in Libya, the surrender of territory to a Christian Empire was a betrayal to Islam, and many Bedouin tribesmen ignored the Treaty's outcome and took up arms against the new Italian occupiers. From his powerbase in Fezzan, Southern Tripolitania, the inspiring Ahmad ash-Sharif galvanises his followers into resisting Italian rule - fortunately for the Sanusis, a total lack of infrastructure means that Italy's grip on southern Tripolitania is virtually nonexistant. Similarly, the Sanusian campaign is not only hampered by the Bedouins technological inferiority in comparison to their Italian foes, but by their isolation from seperate resistance movements occurring in Northern Tripolitania. Additionally, the Sanusis do not have the backing of wealthy Tripolitanian urban elites, who now seek to reach a compromise agreement with the Italians.

 

[unmerged(24028)]

Can I edit the Swedish one a little?

My Edit is:


In the 18th Century Sweden dreamed of a Unified Scandinavia, ruled from Stockholm of course. The last century however shattered Sweden's dream; In 1809 they lost control of Finland to Russia, but a United Scandinavia was considered a reality again when five years later Denmark was compelled to cede Norway to Sweden. The Norwegians were not happy with this union however, and a rebellion began in 1878. Finally the Norwegians capped decades of sedition by breaking away in 1905.

In 1914, the Swedish government has just granted extensive suffrage for men, but women remain disenfranchised. While the Social Democrats are on the ascendancy, the bourgeoisie and middling classes attempt to stop their reforms, and as 1914 dawns, Sweden must choose between neutrality and relative obscurity or to take sides in an increasingly polarized Europe. The Germans have secretly promised Finland in the event of war, but questions remain as to whether the public will support Sweden's entry into what could be a devastating war.


Better? I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by editing it... Sorry if I do...

 

[Allenby]

Can I edit the Swedish one a little?

My Edit is:


In the 18th Century Sweden dreamed of a Unified Scandinavia, ruled from Stockholm of course. The last century however shattered Sweden's dream; In 1809 they lost control of Finland to Russia, but a United Scandinavia was considered a reality again when five years later Denmark was compelled to cede Norway to Sweden. The Norwegians were not happy with this union however, and a rebellion began in 1878. Finally the Norwegians capped decades of sedition by breaking away in 1905.

By 1914, the Swedish government has granted extensive suffrage for men, but women remain disenfranchised. While the Social Democrats are on the ascendancy, the bourgeoisie and middling classes attempt to stop their reforms, and as 1914 dawns, Sweden must choose between neutrality and relative obscurity or to take sides in an increasingly polarized Europe. The Germans have secretly promised Finland in the event of war, but questions remain as to whether the public will support Sweden's entry into what could be a devastating war.


Better? I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by editing it... Sorry if I do...

Not a problem. I shall edit even further....

In the 18th Century Sweden dreamed of a Unified Scandinavia ruled from their capital, Stockholm. However, the last century shattered Sweden's dream - In 1809 they lost control of Finland to Russia, but a United Scandinavia was considered a reality again when five years later Denmark was compelled to cede Norway to Sweden. The Norwegians were not happy with this union however, and a rebellion began in 1878. Finally the Norwegians capped decades of sedition by breaking away in 1905.

In 1914, the Swedish government has just granted extensive suffrage for men, but women remain disenfranchised. While the Social Democrats are on the ascendancy, the bourgeoisie and middling classes attempt to stop their reforms, and as 1914 dawns, Sweden must choose between neutrality and relative obscurity or to take sides in an increasingly polarised Europe. The Germans have secretly promised Finland in the event of war, but questions remain as to whether the public will support Sweden's entry into what could be a devastating war.

 

[Allenby]

Egypt

In 1805, Muhammad Ali led the Egyptian army to rebellion against the Ottoman viceroy, asserting himself as the virtually independent ruler of Egypt. Muhammad Ali consolidated his power by breaking Mameluke power and smashing the ‘ulama’ – Egypt’s Islamic notables. Egyptian control was extended further down the Nile – Khartoum was founded in 1823, and the Egyptian military was instrumental in defeating the Wahhabi sect in Central Arabia. The importance of Egypt strategically did not go unnoticed by the world’s two great imperial powers – Great Britain and France. Both jostled for influence in Egypt throughout the mid nineteenth century, with the French helping to modernise the Egyptian Army, building canals – including the Suez canal under the direction of Ferdinand de Lesseps, and directing city planning on Parisian lines. On the other hand, the British introduced modern finance management and industry. Khedive Ismael, who reigned from 1863-1879 extended the modernisation programme, increased public spending lavishly whilst taking huge loans from British and French banks. Meanwhile, the Suez Canal was completed in 1869, but with Egypt’s financial difficulties, Khedive Ismael was compelled to sell his 49% stake to Disraeli’s British government in 1875. Having driven Egypt to bankruptcy, Ismael was deposed in 1879 with European influence, and was replaced by Tewfik. Seen as a puppet by nationalist Egyptian army officers, Tewfik struggled to gain the confidence of his people, and in 1882, Arabi Pasha led an uprising against the Khedive’s rule. Fearing that British and French finances and the Suez Canal were be at risk, the two respective governments conspired to act – the French found themselves unable, forcing Prime Minister Gladstone to act unilaterally, sending a naval squadron to bombard Alexandria and Major-General Wolseley to occupy the country, which he did after winning the Battle of Tel el Kebir. British control of Egypt tightened under the ‘veiled protectorate’ run by Sir Evelyn Baring, the Earl of Cromer who continued to modernise the country while moderating Egypt’s financial situation. In 1883 the Mahdi rebelled against Egyptian rule, capturing Khartoum in 1885 and killing British officer Major-General Charles Gordon. The Mahdists continued to rule the Sudan until the Nile campaign of 1896-1898, in which Major-General Kitchener led his Anglo-Egyptian force to avenge Gordon by taking victory at Omdurman, just outside Khartoum. The subsequent crisis at Fashoda saw French influence in Egypt marginalised, allowing Cromer to make Britain the undisputed overlords of Egypt. Problematically, Khedive Abbas II (reigned from 1892) continued in his attempts to break Britain’s control throughout the 1900s, yet the new British Agent-General, Lord Kitchener held him in check. By 1914, the Egyptian question remained fundamentally unresolved – many in Britain would like to see British rule in Egypt ended, with Britain in control of the canal. Yet many would fear that a British withdrawal would lead to the power vacuum being filled by forces hostile to the British Empire. Alternatively, putting Egypt under official British protection is seen by some as the only viable way forward.

 

[StephenT]

Mexico

Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821, but its early history was a troubled one - with over 36 different governments in its first 30 years of existence. Even worse was to come at the hands of the overbearing neighbour to the north however. First, in 1836, the English-speaking settlers in the province of Texas managed to successfully rebel. Then, in 1846, the USA provoked a war which led to humiliating Mexican defeat and the loss of over 40% of her territory, including California, Arizona and New Mexico. Defeat led to tensions in Mexican society, and in 1858 President Juarez launched an attack on the status and power of the Church and the Army. This triggered a three-year civil war, and the European powers intervened to protect their financial interests. In 1863 France took the opportunity to set up Maximilian of Austria as Emperor of Mexico, supported by French troops. The USA was unwilling to see any power (other than themselves) intervening in Central America, however, and forced France to withdraw. The French puppet Maximilian was executed in 1867, and Juarez regained power. His successor as the dominant force in Mexican politics was Porfirio Diaz, who ruled (with some interruptions) from 1877 until 1911. During this long period, the traditional urban and rural elites endeavoured to strengthen their grip on society, in the face of mounting opposition from democratic and radical forces. Diaz relied heavily on support from Britain and the USA, offering great privileges to foreign investors who took control over significant portions of the Mexican economy. All this caused much unrest, and in 1910 a peasant uprising began, led by Pancho Villa in the northern provinces and Emiliano Zapata in the south. In 1911 a radical northern landowner, Francisco Madero, made alliance with the rebels and overthrew Diaz. He in turn was murdered in 1913, and the military strongman General Huerta took over the government. With the support of the conservative factions in society, the Mexican government must now fight to suppress the revolutionaries and their northern allies, who since the death of Madero are now led by Venustiano Carranza. The support of the USA may well be vital in crushing the revolt, but there is no guarantee that the Yanquis will maintain their support for the Huerta regime; many in Washington favour Carranza as a better ally. Still, for all its problems Mexico is potentially a powerful nation, with a dense population and a prosperous new oil industry. If this civil war can be won, then all sorts of opportunities could arise.

Revolutionary Mexico

Mexico gained its freedom from Spanish tyranny in 1821, but its early history was a troubled one - with over 36 different governments in its first 30 years of existence. Even worse was to come at the hands of the overbearing neighbour to the north however. First, in 1836, the slave-owning settlers in the province of Texas managed to successfully rebel. Then, in 1846, the USA provoked a war which led to humiliating Mexican defeat and the loss of over 40% of her territory, including California, Arizona and New Mexico. Defeat led to tensions in Mexican society, and in 1858 President Juarez took office with the aim of curbing the excessive power of the Church and the Army. This triggered a three-year civil war, and the imperialist European powers intervened to protect their financial interests. In 1863 France took the opportunity to set up Maximilian of Austria as Emperor of Mexico, supported by French troops. The USA was unwilling to see any power (other than themselves) intervening in Central America, however, and forced France to withdraw. The French puppet Maximilian was executed in 1867, and Juarez regained power. His successor as the dominant force in Mexican politics was Porfirio Diaz, who ruled (with some interruptions) from 1877 until 1911. During this long period, the reactionary urban and rural elites endeavoured to strengthen their iron grip on society, in the face of mounting opposition from democratic and radical forces. Diaz relied heavily on support from his paymasters in Britain and the USA, offering unfair privileges to foreign investors who took control over significant portions of the Mexican economy. All this naturally caused much unrest, and in 1910 a peasant uprising began, led by Pancho Villa in the northern provinces and Emiliano Zapata in the south. In 1911 a radical northern landowner, Francisco Madero, made alliance with the revolutionary forces and overthrew Diaz. Tragically, he was murdered in 1913, and the military strongman General Huerta took over the government. The task now facing the forces of Villa and Zapata, with their northern allies now led by Venustiano Carranza, is firstly - to overthrow the dictatorial regime of Huerta and the conservative factions in society who support him. Secondly, to reorganise Mexican society, to end forever the grip of the landowners, redistribute land to the peasants, introduce a democratic constitution and end the dominance of foreign economic interests. For all its problems Mexico is potentially a powerful nation, with a dense population and a prosperous new oil industry. If this civil war can be won, then all sorts of opportunities could arise.

You'll notice that the wording of these is mostly the same, but with some subtle differences of tone.

Incidentally, the current Mexican leader file gives the Head of Government as a democratic centrist named Marquez. I read two accounts of the Mexican Revolution and neither mentioned him, so I'm not sure who he was! I'd have thought that Huerta, a military autocrat, should be the HoS/HoG.

Also, Carranzo is currently the Revolutionary Mexico head of state. He should also appear in the Mexican leader file as a replacement, while Pancho Villa should be available as replacement head of state for the revolutionaries.

 

[Allenby]

Incidentally, the current Mexican leader file gives the Head of Government as a democratic centrist named Marquez. I read two accounts of the Mexican Revolution and neither mentioned him, so I'm not sure who he was! I'd have thought that Huerta, a military autocrat, should be the HoS/HoG.

Also, Carranzo is currently the Revolutionary Mexico head of state. He should also appear in the Mexican leader file as a replacement, while Pancho Villa should be available as replacement head of state for the revolutionaries.

My apologies, when compiling the file I noticed that the interim leader on January 1st 1914 was Victoriano de la Huerta Márquez - of course, I incorrectly used his last name, when de la Huerta - his surname - should have been used. He was the leader of the Constitutionalist Party as well - so I assumed he was a centrist from that....