Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread
- Thread starter Beedok
- Start date
Started looking at the big PIDE file on the UNAR/UNAMO again and found that there's actually a map of Rumbezia in it!
I think this technically goes here:
Go to 1:57 for details on the declaration of the independent State of Chinland by the Chin National Front
And a wiki article:
en.wikipedia.org
Go to 1:57 for details on the declaration of the independent State of Chinland by the Chin National Front
And a wiki article:
Chinland - Wikipedia
Okay out of pure coincidence I checked out one of the videos of this account and it turns out the Chin also live in ethnically fraught Manipur in India where they are known as the Kuki.
They are part of a much wider group of Chin-Kuki language-speakers known as the "Zo". Other groups include the Zomi and Mizo. Don't know much else about them, but there is an area which I guess you could call "Greater Chinland": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zogam
Having been to the region in question, the fact Chinland doesn't control Hakha or Falam or Paletwa means that it's basically just: (1) jungle, (2) villages burned by the Tatmadaw and Arakan Army, and (3) non-burned, minor villagesI think this technically goes here:
Go to 1:57 for details on the declaration of the independent State of Chinland by the Chin National Front
And a wiki article:
Chinland - Wikipedia
Also as the video highlights, the CNF is not explicitly pro-independence, and is more like a Rojava, in that it wants a federal system for Myanmar, as do most of the ethnic liberation organizations.
Reading about Manipur in general is a trip, so many ethnicities and peoples just completely overlooked. (Myanmar is sort of like that but slightly less so.) Something like 5% of the state follow Sanamahism, which is the traditional Meitei religion and I've never ever heard of it.
I found an alternate proposal for the Plombières Agreement:
Savoy-led Upper Italy would lose Nice, Savoy and Sardinia, but gain Dalmatia and Istria; the proposed kingdom in Central Italy, under a French-backed monarch, would gain Sardinia and Corsica; southern Italy would be under a king backed by the United Kingdom. Personally, I doubt Paris would be willing to part with Corsica and accept a British-backed king in the south, but if France were to choose both the central and southern monarchs (probably Maria Teresa di Borbone for central Italy, and Luciano Murat for southern Italy) this could have a very small chance of happening. That said, I doubt this setup would last long: Cavour was convinced that, by virtue of the House of Savoy controlling the north, the confederation would've been in his hands; Napoleon III believed that, by having two "French" monarchs in the other kingdoms, he would've called the shots. By the time Austria and Prussia come to blows, if Cavour's still alive, he might try to do the funniest thing ever, especially if he and Bismarck hit it up.
Unrealistic scenario but, having the two most magnificent bastards of the late 19th century team up would be... interesting, for sure.
Savoy-led Upper Italy would lose Nice, Savoy and Sardinia, but gain Dalmatia and Istria; the proposed kingdom in Central Italy, under a French-backed monarch, would gain Sardinia and Corsica; southern Italy would be under a king backed by the United Kingdom. Personally, I doubt Paris would be willing to part with Corsica and accept a British-backed king in the south, but if France were to choose both the central and southern monarchs (probably Maria Teresa di Borbone for central Italy, and Luciano Murat for southern Italy) this could have a very small chance of happening. That said, I doubt this setup would last long: Cavour was convinced that, by virtue of the House of Savoy controlling the north, the confederation would've been in his hands; Napoleon III believed that, by having two "French" monarchs in the other kingdoms, he would've called the shots. By the time Austria and Prussia come to blows, if Cavour's still alive, he might try to do the funniest thing ever, especially if he and Bismarck hit it up.
Unrealistic scenario but, having the two most magnificent bastards of the late 19th century team up would be... interesting, for sure.
Yup - Italy would've killed two birds with one stone here, reclaiming most of the Irredenta (and therefore avoiding those embarrassing military defeats that eventually contributed to the rise of Fascism) while allowing the center and south of the peninsula to develop with far less interference from Piedmontese interests (leading to a more developed peninsula, and perhaps even weakening the mafia in the long run, if a Bonaparte or Murat decides to rid their domain of that plague); sure, Italy would've been a French protectorate in all but name at first but, Napoleon III being Napoleon III, this wouldn't last.
Yeah if there was ever a hair-brained scheme, it would be this one. The biggest issue I see is that it likely would not satisfy the interests of the Piedmontese government, the varying ambitions of Italian nationalists, or even the Great powers of France, Britain, and Austria.I found an alternate proposal for the Plombières Agreement:
View attachment 888151
Savoy-led Upper Italy would lose Nice, Savoy and Sardinia, but gain Dalmatia and Istria; the proposed kingdom in Central Italy, under a French-backed monarch, would gain Sardinia and Corsica; southern Italy would be under a king backed by the United Kingdom. Personally, I doubt Paris would be willing to part with Corsica and accept a British-backed king in the south, but if France were to choose both the central and southern monarchs (probably Maria Teresa di Borbone for central Italy, and Luciano Murat for southern Italy) this could have a very small chance of happening. That said, I doubt this setup would last long: Cavour was convinced that, by virtue of the House of Savoy controlling the north, the confederation would've been in his hands; Napoleon III believed that, by having two "French" monarchs in the other kingdoms, he would've called the shots. By the time Austria and Prussia come to blows, if Cavour's still alive, he might try to do the funniest thing ever, especially if he and Bismarck hit it up.
Unrealistic scenario but, having the two most magnificent bastards of the late 19th century team up would be... interesting, for sure.
Cavour would have loved to oust the Austrians from the Peninsula, especially if it meant empowering Piedmont as well. Plus, he was apparently a big giga-lib in an 19th century way. The problem however is that an Austrian hegemon would be replaced with a French one, which now would have a vested interest in ensuring the new status quo remained as it did. They had their spoils, but anymore would now be dependent on the French government's will. Come WW1 or any major conflict, the Kingdoms would probably have to join a war they would likely not have been in shape to fight. They certainly would not have fixed the Italian economy. All in all, it still would yield many short-term gains and many important long-term gains, but it would be counter-productive in the long-long-term. From what I recall, vaguely, Cavour more often then not tried to both lead Napoleon on but kept him at arms length, which could be easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy or difficult-difficult-lemon-difficult because Napoleon liked to procrastinate.
For Italian nationalists, this problem was basically the same in terms of having a French-dominated regime rather than an Austrian one. But even more problematic, it would have alienated Italian nationalists who wanted to see a unified Italy. Even having 2 kingdoms would have been a major issue. Plus, this meant limited gains in the way of nationalism for the remainder of the Irrendenta, even though there were different versions of it depending on who you asked. The current "natural" borders of Italy, especially in the Trentino-Tyrol would have probably been dead in the water. The fourth shore, greece, and other ambitions would be practically impossible. Keep in mind, many of the Il-Duce's beliefs on an Italian Empire manifested from older Italian ambitions that came to be even before Italy was unified. Colonial Empire might even be impossible, not just because it would require much needed funds from a divided budget. I don't know if French intentions would have prevented or accelerated some of these, but I'm sure there's a case for both.
Austria of course would not like this, but Napoleon and Cavour would've fought them anyway. However, France and Britain would not neccesarily have much to gain from accepting this either. France would basically have to fight for Italy. Even back then, Italian generalship as well as other facets of the military were sub-par at best. If the great war still happened with this agreement, France would likely have to divide their forces between the Germans and the Austrians (not equally but they needed a great deal of resources to deal with Germany), and it's unlikely they would have had major success since the Isonzo river was an excellent defensive position for Austria. It's baffling they believe they would ever march to Russia through the Danube basin anyway, especially if Austria allied with Russia. They could at least provide additional manpower, though they will bankrupt all their client states doing so. Napoleon would also not have guaranteed his "French lake". Italy was an important stepping stone, but he would still be required to match Britain in naval strength, which adding Italy would never have done. Naval power is expensive, and neither French finance alone or added Italian finances would likely have sustained them long-term, or guaranteed other mediterranean nations like Greece, the Ottomans, Morocco, and more importantly Egypt.
As a side note, Britain would NEVER agree to something like this. Getting to choose a monarch is not something they would have accepted without additional compensation, especially since they took threats to naval power of all kinds very seriously when resources were available.
I think this is the original proposal.
I can see it breeding the sort of discontent that leads to them to strike back at the French in the future.
That's exactly what I implied, the 1866 war (or a close equivalent) might see Italy and Prussia go against Austria and France, countries that, due to the early loss of Dalmatia, Istria and Venetia on one hand, and Corsica on the other (going by the "maximalist" plan I posted earlier, not the "canon" plan depicted in the map) would be somewhat weaker than in OTL. Prussia might end up forming the German Empire half a decade earlier, Italy would regain Nice and maybe Savoy while annexing Rome and Trento, but that's an absolute best case scenario very dependent on the Berlin-Rome axis (uh... phrasing?) not fucking up.
And I haven't even considered the United Kingdom - on one hand, a weaker France would suit London but, on the other hand, an united Germany would not.
I think there was also an idea for exchange of Lombardy-Veneto or Parma and Modena for "Danubian principalities"? Either during or after Crimean war...
(which sound to me convenient for France - on one hand, Austrian influence in Italy reduced, on the other, Austria is blocking Russia in the east...)
(which sound to me convenient for France - on one hand, Austrian influence in Italy reduced, on the other, Austria is blocking Russia in the east...)
That depends on how well the different factions get along with each other
I think a Junta collapse will be more like one less contestant in a Battle Royale than the end of the war. Look at the collapse of ISIS. It didn't stop the conflict and invasions, just changed them.
A decentralised federation is the stated goal of all members of the anti-tatmadaw coalition. The "declaration of independence" of Chinland seems to have been exaggerated by reporting, and it seems that they are also in line with this goal. I suppose it's not impossible that many of the ethnic armies desire actual independence and are cooperating with each other and the PDF as a short-term solution to achieve that goal, but to be honest I think the political incentives and pressure to maintain Myanmar's territorial integrity are sufficiently powerful that it will prevent de jure fragmentation of the country (though it does seem likely that de facto the ethnic regions will become independent polities, similar to the existing Wa State). Modern civil wars typically do not lead to de jure fragmentation of a country, even when it is divided between competing polities for decades. Of course this can happen under certain conditions, and I won't claim to entirely understand what those are and whether any of them apply to Myanmar.
Arguably it did. Assad's government won the civil war and gained hegemony over the country, and violence now occurs only in sporadic outbreaks.