History, Politics And Current Affairs

Cuba

General
Cuba is viewed with appalled fascination by the rest of the world. It is openly and overtly run by American-based Mafia gangsters who revel in their notoriety. Cuba is also the world's number one tourist destination and is renowned for its luxurious hotel casinos, beach resorts, and theme parks. What happened in Cuba was that the Batista-Castro civil war occurred in the mid-1950s but, without outside support for either side, neither had the power to overthrow the other and take their place. In the end, they destroyed each other. At that time the Mob was moving into Cuba heavily and by 1959 had major investments in the country. With the country collapsing, no central government, and various political factions looting anything they could get their hands on, it looked pretty bad for Cuba. At that point, Che Guevara and his gang tried to shake down the Mob Casinos and got whacked (it's reputed he was so full of lead his nose left a pencil mark and his body on the bottom of Havana Bay is a toxic waste hazard). The Families then brought in their own gunmen to protect the casino areas and the areas under the protection of the Family wiseguys were the only reasonably safe and secure areas of Cuba. People voted with their feet and went to those areas, Mob control spread out from them and they were received as a welcome return to stability and security. By the end of 1960, the Mob effectively were the Cuban Government. Batista had already had an unfortunate accident when he shot himself 17 times in the back of the head while cleaning a gun. Castro runs a shoeshine concession in one of the Havana Casino-Hotels and coaches a little league team for the children of tourists.

By 1964, Cuba was well on the road to recovery, prosperous with the fabulous income from the Casinos and divided up into fiefs run by the various Mob families. Due to the shortage of Sicilians in Cuba (although an amazing number of Cubans discovered they do have Sicilian grandparents; there must have been an undisclosed wave of emigration into Cuba in the 19th Century). Cubans are being recruited in to the Families as associates and are working their way up the family tree. Eventually that will end with the Mob in Cuba being as much Cuban as Sicilian.

International
Nobody quite knows what to make of Cuba. International politicians hate the place, primarily (it is suspected) because its existence allows them to be compared directly to gangsters and they don't come out well in the comparison. Most politicians would like to see Cuba invaded, the gangsters running the country removed from power and a conventional government put in its place. The reality is that any government that tried to do so would be lynched by its own citizens who wouldn't stand for their playground being shot at. In any case, the United States has made it discretely known that Cuba is under its protection and that precludes any regime change operation. Also, the Cuban-based Mafia has contacts with criminal elements all over the world, the deal being that Cuba's fabulous wealth gets shared out and in exchange those criminal organizations watch Cuba's back and protect its interests.

Domestic
Essentially, Cuba is run like an extended Mafia family. The lowest ranks of the Mob (now mostly Cuban) control small areas of the country and they live in that area, charging for services and kicking some of the proceeds to their superiors. Cuba has no defined legal code other than "Don't ever mess with the tourists" and "Don't rock the boat". Legal disputes and crimes are settled by "sit downs" where the involved parties take their case to their local Mob boss who listens to their case over a meal and gives his verdict. Mob wiseguys claim that this system outperforms conventional legal systems because every case is decided on its own merits rather than on precedents of dubious worth. It seems to work, Cuba is rich, stable, peaceful and hedonistic. As a by-product, there are no lawyers doing business in Cuba.

Australia (Government)
One aspect of modern Australia probably causes more confusion than any other to foreigners. That is how can be we a Federated Commonwealth with a Constitutional Monarchy and a President. Like most Australian political history it is skipped over in our schools and that in itself probably accounts for most of the different versions told to the curious visitor.

It really isn’t that complicated, and it all revolved around the exact wording of the Daventry Broadcast. For those who need a bit of background, one of the first acts of the Halifax Government after it took power in Britain was to isolate the Royal Family, this was mainly because the King was about the only threat to the Coup who wasn’t and could not be arrested or disappeared. So obviously he had to be controlled without alarming the populace or worse the British armed forces, who after all owed their loyalty to the Crown not Parliament.
Needless to say His Majesty wasn’t exactly thrilled with either the Coup or his new protective accommodation, which looked remarkably like one of the Grace and Favour apartments built into the wall of Windsor Castle.

Of the many plots and schemes hatched in Britain during this period, the majority involved the Royals in some form, so it was not altogether surprising that Lord Halifax’s cone of silence rapidly developed a few leaks. In the brief period between the Coup and the Great Escape, which involved most of the Royal Navy and the compliance of the other two services, George VI had to face the prospect that he would not regain his freedom. This in turn led him and the rest of the loyalists to develop plans for various contingencies. The most obvious of which was a message to the rest of the Empire.

This message was smuggled out of Windsor and broadcast on September the 19th 1940 in place of the Midday BBC short wave news bulletin from the main overseas transmitter at Daventry (hence the name) outside London. The communique was in two parts, the first a spoken message addressed to all, and the second transmitted in encoded Morse directed at the various Dominion and Colonial governments, sent twice each time in a different cipher, both of which were specifically for the use by the Crown.

It was this last portion that was in effect the living will of the Crown, and literally the fate of an Empire rested on it. As might be expected there are theories galore about alleged changes, missing words, punctuation and variations that only prove there is no limit to the human imagination. The reader is free to hold their own opinions, but those two messages were probably recorded by more people in more places than any other Morse transmission in history. They were decoded in every outpost of the Empire with access to the keys and almost immediately compared between them. There is even a web page from Canada (and I think another from South Africa) that offer Java Scripts that allow you to encode in any message you like including the original transmissions (which are available from numerous sources, just Google) and decode it in exactly the same encryption, correct for date of broadcast. I’ve done it myself along with several test messages of random gobbledygook, and the published version always matches.

Anyway, back to Australia at 2 am one fateful morning in 1940. The effective part of the communique reads: Be it known that it is our will that in the event of direct communication with the Crown being severed. The Powers of the Crown will pass through the direct Representative to the DomCol Cabinet in Committee in trust George VI Rex.

Forty two words; forty two words that have probably been the root of almost as much controversy as Thou Shall Not Kill for over 60 years and will probably still be debated long after I’m gone, or I dare say anyone else reading this.

Obviously the key was and is in the interpretation of those two sentences and the intent. Since clarification was at the time impossible, every Colonial Administration and Dominion Government was free to make their own guess at both, and they generally fell into two schools of thought.
The first, which is the generally accepted formula, is that it was a safety clause, intended to cover those actions already taken by the Empire and Commonwealth namely telling Halifax and Co to go boil their heads, and at the same time provide for the worst case, that is the King remaining under the control of the Halifax Government. Historians generally agree that the intent was for everyone wait and see, only using the text if and when they absolutely had to.

The second group were those governments who sized on it to further their own agenda in various ways. First among these was Australia, the Coalition Government of the day was led by the Australian Labor Party in the person of John Curtain. The ALP was based on a blue collar and trade union foundation that included a large Irish and Catholic membership. Of the two major parties, it was the least enamored with the Empire and while it cloaked itself with a loyalist facade, the party had a strong Republican bent and was the one most willing, nay eager, to shed our Dominion status for complete independence.

The conservative Australia Party was staunchly monarchist but had no more idea about how to take the Kings message than anyone else. However there was one thing they were certain about and that was Labor wasn’t going to get away with anything so partisan on their watch thank you very much.

Curtain and the Labor Caucus were hell bent on taking advantage of this golden opportunity to gain one of the principal historical aims of their party, and with the balance of power in the parliament there was going to be change. The only question was how much and in what direction, the Australia Party could swing enough votes to affect the outcome, but they couldn’t stop it outright. The compromise that resulted hung on that last sentence.

Labor wanted to read it as the Crown passing its powers to the local legislature to dispose of at their discretion. The conservatives insisted on a literal interpretation, as this was seen to be the least workable one, so offering the most obstruction to Labor in the hope they would can the whole idea.

The whole process was pushed through with indecent haste by Labor, in an effort to steamroll the opposition, just as the Loyalists (there was a fair bit of cross bench movement over this issue) dug their heels in hoping to delay.

I’ll reprint the original sentence:
The Powers of the Crown will pass through the direct Representative to the DomCol Cabinet in Committee in trust George VI Rex.
The Powers of the Crown are constitutional and laid down (in relation to Australia) by our Constitution and the Common Law, there was no real argument here.

will pass through the direct Representative to the DomCol The direct Representative in the case of Australia was the Governor General and the Crowns powers pass through him anyway, DomCol was a simple contraction of Colonial and Dominion that was in regular use, so there was not much to argue about here either.

to the DomCol Cabinet in Committee in trust George VI Rex. Is where all the trouble begins. There are two main questions here.
The first issue is a matter of punctuation, or rather the lack of it. By inserting commas the passage can be manipulated in any number of ways. For example put one after DomCol to read to the Dom/Col, Cabinet in Committee in trust George Rex. It begs the question which cabinet? If the reference to DomCol was only to identify the Governors of the Colonies and Dominions, then the only Cabinet with a general purview was London and that would rather defeat the whole purpose of the statement in context. Obviously this was the version preferred in London at the time and indeed they repeated the transmission at midnight with that very change. But they rather over egged their pudding by making several other changes to the original and no one at the time excepted the Halifax Revision, I don’t think they fooled themselves either, as they sent it in plane language.
The other favorite place to add a comma is after Committee to read to the DomCol Cabinet in Committee, in trust George VI Rex. This is by far the most popular revision because by re associating DomCol with Cabinet it transfers the power to the local authority; and by reducing the words in trust to a parting salute, it also removes the one possible condition imposed by the King on that power.

However if we accept the original transmission as sent, it renders all this moot at the cost of opening an even bigger can of worms. That is, what the hell does The Powers of the Crown will pass through the direct Representative to the DomCol Cabinet in Committee in trust George VI Rex. Bloody well mean?

Naturally the first instinct was to refer this to the courts, but ironically the only court with authority to rule on such an issue was the Privy Council in London, so that wasn’t much help. With time pressing as more and more Commonwealth countries adopted a wait and see approach, the Labor Party found themselves hemmed in by judges at every level, the majority of which insisted that the only legally supportable interpretation was the literal one; which was of course the same position held by the loyalists. This was that the authority of the Crown was to pass through the Governor General to the Cabinet, there to be held in trust by the Cabinet sitting as a Committee of Trustees.

In the end Curtain decided to accept the unworkable interpretation, in an effort to get something that could be reworked later into a more acceptable form. And that was his mistake.

Politicians, Government Ministers and especially Cabinet members are long used to wearing more than one hat. But I don’t think the Cabinet of the day really had time to mull through exactly what they were letting themselves in for, if they did, I doubt they’d have ever accepted this solution. On the surface it seemed like a simple transfer of power from the Crown to the Cabinet, but there was no mention of what fate should befall the position of Governor General. Power was to pass through him but what happened then?

The office of GG was not abolished, he was specifically acknowledged as the direct representative of the Crown and the Crown was to be held by a body that was in theory a separate entity to the Cabinet it was directed to. Therefore it seemed logical that the Crown still had a direct representative, this left the situation where the GG acting for the Crown hired and fired the Government (through the PM), with the Government acting as the Committee of Trustees hired and fired the GG who was nominated by the PM. The actual Cabinet acting as a Cabinet was in fact at the bottom of the pecking order.

In reality the Australia Act of 1940 didn’t change that much in terms of practical governance during WWII. The only visible effect was a switching of titles in line with the new hats everybody was wearing. As the head of the Cabinet, the PM was now his own boss as head of the Committee of Crown Trustees, and since this was obviously the more senior of the three positions he held, its title was superior to and superseded that of Prime Minister. I suppose Curtain could have chosen to be the Chairman but really President was not only the more logical choice but fitted with the Republican flavor that was his party’s goal.

It wasn’t until after the war that the wider implications started to be felt. One of the first things the King was asked in 1942 on his arrival in Canada was of course to clarify Daventry, while he never explained his reasons for doing so, the accepted rationale for his refusal to comment further on the matter, is that he was unwilling to undermine the decisions of his appointed Governments by expressing anything that would conflict with the positions they had taken. Given the wide range of these decisions there wasn’t really anything he could say that would not set him across one or another of his Governments.

The only point he ever did provide an answer to, was the direct question of who the Crown was supposed to be held in trust for (this for Australia’s benefit), the Crown itself (in other words the King) or (his subjects) the People. His answer was as brief as it was concise, he said one word “Both”. Who’d ever have thought a King of England could have such an evil sense of humor?

By setting the terms of the trust in such a broad way, the unworkable nature of the Australia Act of 1940 became truly apparent as soon as people had the time to look at the implications. As a Trust set up under the auspices of the Courts, the Committee had been established with Text Book terms of reference. That is they were to control the Trust for the benefit of the beneficiary or beneficiaries. By defining the beneficiaries as both the Crown and the People, the Cabinet found itself in the unenviable position of being personally liable in law for the decisions they made as a Cabinet and so open to legal suit by both the Crown and the populace if they failed in their duty of care.

The only saving grace for our politicians was that any suit had to come from both parties, that is a suite by a private individual or organization had to be a joint action with the Crown. This is where that little loose end that was the office of Governor General came into its own, as it was after all still the direct representative of the Crown. The other angle was that the beneficiaries (i.e. we the people) are entitled to petition the Trustees.
In practice the GG is nominated by the President as PM and confirmed by both the Crown Committee and the Parliament. So in theory the GG should be under the thumb of the President and so Cabinet should be protected from litigation as Trustees or unwanted petitions because the GG has to join any such action. I repeat - in theory. The thing is, that the GG is confirmed by the Parliament whereas the President is not (as the President). So the dismissal of a GG invokes an automatic motion of no confidence in the PM, making any confrontation a between the President and GG a fight to the political death.

There is also the little problem of the present GG not being under any obligation to former Committee/Cabinet members who might now be in opposition. And this isn’t taking into account the rogue factor of the GGs personal conscience and his Oath of Office. GGs being typically respected public figures in the final years of their working lives, they are usually former Judges, political elder statesmen, retired Generals/Admirals even the odd Churchman has snuck in over the years; people of great reputation with nothing much else to lose. Their pension is guaranteed and they are not held to be liable for their actions as GG once they have passed from office.

Let us say the Office of Governor General calls for great tact and diplomacy. But that isn’t the end of the story, because the GG now had to deal with legal matters relating to the Committee, he of course required legal advice. Normally the Attorney General would handle any public legal issues for the GG, but the AG was a Cabinet post and the direct conflict of interest was obvious. Thus the GG ended up with his own autonomous legal office The Office of the Crown Solicitor for the Governor General or CSGG for short. People being people and lawyers being lawyers, the potential suits against Trustees and petitions are a never-ending stream. These had to be dealt with and in doing so from case to case precedents were set and a new branch of Common Law evolved (the GG often being sued in relation to join actions the CSGG has rejected).

So today the Crown still rules Australia, but it does not only at the behest of its subjects, but through their elected representatives who in turn hold the crown in trust. The executive Cabinet have almost unrestricted powers but are personally responsible and liable for their actions not only through the ballot box, but also under the full weight of Civil Law, and both the Government and people have an effective Ombudsman in the form of the GG.

The whole arrangement has been codified to some extent under the Governance Act of 1976; to the point where the GG if presented with sufficient evidence and obvious support (a big enough petition) can call for a referendum on any issue under the authority of the Committee of Trustees. Strangely enough, some opinion has it that the GGs position was reinforced under the Industrial Relations Act of 1990, because as an Employee of the Crown but not the Commonwealth Government, he/she would be entitled to claim under the Unfair Dismissal laws.

This isn’t the full story of course, doctorial theses have been written about the various shenanigans between the GG and Cabinet over the years and if you care enough I suggest you research the subject for yourself, there are certainly enough books on the topic.

Chipan

General
Between 1945 and 1947, Japan completed its conquest of China. In doing so, Japan completely overstretched its resources and put itself into a position where it was continuously playing catch-up to expanding commitments. As a result, China started to absorb Japan and that process continued for almost twenty years. By the late 1950s, the process was recognized by outsiders when the word Chipan was coined to represent the new state. The term had no technical validity, formally, Chipan was still Imperial Japan. However, few people remembered there was a place called Japan. Chipan reached the peak of its power in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Thereafter it started a slow but accelerating decline, primarily because its economic infrastructure and command economy were incapable of coping with the real world. This reached a crisis in 1986 when simultaneous financial, military and political crises struck. The armed forces are very large but poorly equipped and technically obsolete.

International
Chipan was regarded with fear and dread during the early part of its life. The picture of Chinese-sized formation of troops with Japanese skills and fanaticism were a constant theme of 1950s speculative military fiction. The picture of a very large and very powerful military slowly faded as it became apparent that the force wasn’t actually doing very much. Then, later, realization dawned that it wasn’t doing very much because it couldn’t do very much. Combined with an accelerating economic collapse, Chipan's influence faded. It never had much of an economic or trading position anyway. Chipan inherited a significant power projection capability from the Japanese, but it has largely faded away, the fleet inherited from Japan just rusted at its moorings a couple of humiliating defeats at sea speeded things up. Chipanese international policy has been a continual search to secure raw material resources.

Domestic
Chipan has historically been totalitarian and dictatorial. The largely militarized government that had been running the country since 1936 and which reasserted its authority with the 1965 Showa Restoration Coup essentially collapsed in 1986 as a result of the military defeat in Vietnam and the destruction of key military units. This lead to a large-scale uprising in Korea which the virtually bankrupt government simply could not afford to suppress. After a hair-raising confrontation that was only ended by the direct intervention of the Emperor, the military authorities in Chipan yielded. There was, however, no clear successor to their rule.

Between 1986 and 2004, Chipan went through a bewildering series of names and internal reorganizations as the authorities in Tokyo tried to find a formulation that worked. The initial stage, between 1986 and 1991, was to grant limited self-rule to the various geographical entities that made up Chipan, making each responsible for its own administration and defense. The effect of this was to relieve Japan of the huge burden of policing China. That and the end of the wars in Indochina saw Japan's position improve. However, the granting of limited self-rule proved to be the start of an irresistible process towards full autonomy. The previously-Chipanese portions of Indochina broke away to declare full indolence as the Daiviet Federation and even went as far as joining the Triple Alliance (selecting Thailand as its representative on the Triple Alliance Council). Between 1991 and 2001 Korea, Taiwan and Manchuria all broke away also, declaring their indolence. By 2001, Chipan was something of a joke and it was ended by the formal severance of relations between China and Japan in 2001. However, over the next three years, the independent countries began to reassemble themselves into a trading group that became known as the Commonwealth of Asian States. Although unbelievably corrupt, this represented a significant effort to reform and liberalize the societies that had once formed Chipan. However, doing so against dug-in representatives of the old school is proving hard. As a result, the CAS is a mix. Areas that are reforming do quite well. Those that are not, don’t. Japan is recovering quickly from its economic crisis but China, still shackled by a doctrinaire Marxist government is not. The internal strains resulting from that are a major issue for the 21st Century.

The Caliphate

General
The Caliphate states are a very loose federation of fundamentalist Islamic states whose primary characteristic is that they hate each other a little less than they hate the rest of the world. The Caliphate Council itself is a sort of politbureau where policy decisions are made, and sometimes implemented. Decisions taken by the Ruling Council were only binding on the Satraps if they had voted for the decision in question. Those who had not voted for the decision were not bound by it. From the 1970s onwards, the Council lost much of its power and the country was increasingly run by a group of technicians and bureaucrats who had kept their heads down during the early years of the theocratic state. Their rise to power marked an end to the Caliphate's policy of ruthless expansionism and the adoption of a "heads down policy" minimizing the Caliphate's profile.

The Caliphate States were the last of the current regional powers to form; they started to grow in the very late 1950s and throughout the 1960s. The justification for their existence was an expressed fear that the Americans would use their nuclear bombers to destroy Islam, just as they'd used them to destroy Germany. In a very real sense, the Caliphate is a child of The Big One. Their original political philosophy was to convert the rest of the world to Fundamentalist Islam by Fire and Sword, then use the united world to destroy the Americans. As a result of military training by the German expatriates and the huge revenues from oil sales, they had substantial military power. This policy was discredited by a series of stinging defeats handed out in the 1960s and 1970s that convinced most of the Caliphate leadership that their plans were unworkable. From that point onwards they adopted a new policy that envisaged them simply waiting until things turned out the way they wanted.

Thus, the mad extreme-fundamentalist regime that characterized (and still largely characterizes) public images of The Caliphate really only lasted about fifteen years at most. At its most generous, the fundamentalist Caliphate lasted from 1960 through to 1973/74. With the collapse of the ruling council and the fundamentalist theocracy, a much more realistic regime became established. This quietly reversed many of the most objectionable of the fundamentalist’s policies and tried to construct a viable modern state that still retained some of its Islamic flavor. This was complicated by the structure of the caliphate itself which contained a wide variety of social and religious schisms. The work of the leaders who took over after the mid-1970s was constantly challenged by extremists and, by the 1980s, The Caliphate was in a constant state of near civil war. This further distracted them from outside adventures.

International
As the result of its actions in the 1960-73 time period, The Caliphate is viewed as a collection of brutal, uncivilized, murderous barbarians. That is the opinion of their few friends; their numerous enemies are less complimentary about them. Every country had suffered from Caliphate-inspired terrorist attacks which grew steadily growing in frequency and devastation until the end of the 1970s. Any country that tried to negotiate with or come to an understanding with The Caliphate were told that no negotiations were possible until the country in question adopted (Fundamentalist) Islam as its only permitted religion, ran itself according to the strictest interpretations of Sharia and forced its population to convert. Even those well-disposed to The Caliphate tended to be subjected hate-filled tirades and a spate of terrorist attacks as a result to any real or imagined slight.
The defeat in the Middle East in 1965 and the bombing of the industrial heartland of The Caliphate in 1973 put an end to this era. For the next seventy years, the Caliphate became a reclusive and inaccessible area that had as little to do with the rest of the world as the rest of the world wanted to do with it. As a result of incessant internal turmoil, The Caliphate had neither the resources of the capability to have an international policy.

Domestic
The Caliphate is a doctrinaire and viciously repressive theocracy with strong Nazi influences. Territorially, it runs from Afghanistan to Tunisia and from the southern borders of Turkey, to the Sudan. There are no human rights, no civil rights, what economy exists is a command economy. Education is restricted to the Koran; as a result, the ability to absorb and use modern technology is fading. If the Caliphate had a motto it would be Forward to the 7th century and they mean it. This policy was moderated from the early 1980s onwards but remained vicious and repressive by international standards.

Each of the once-independent countries that is part of The Caliphate is ruled by a Satrap. Officially, ruling a country entitled the ruler to be part of The Caliphate Council. In fact, it worked the other way, only people who are already members of The Caliphate are entitled also to become a Satrap of one of the countries. The countries themselves are divided into provinces, ruled by Sub-Satraps appointed by the Satrap.The Caliphs actively encouraged the Satraps to intrigue against each other and changes in Satrapy boundaries achieved by such intrigues make the map of The Caliphate a fluid and changing thing. It is not uncommon for Satraps to gain control of territories not actually in their Satrapy. Of course, the Satraps required official approval once such changes had been made.

Even the borders of the previously-independent countries are constantly shifting with the interplay of politics and the intrigues between the Satraps - for every gain made by a Satrap increased the power of the Caliph to whom he owed allegiance. The reverse applied of course, a Satrap whose intrigues failed reduced the power and influence of his Caliph. And that was an offense punished with great severity. So, the borders of the countries themselves were shifting, to reflect the influence of ethnic differences and the various tribal regions, and the differences between herding areas and farming areas and, always, the power and ability of the Satraps.

So The Caliphate Council rules The Caliphate as a whole, each member of the Council ruled a country as its Satrap and the provinces forming the country were ruled by Sub-Satraps appointed by the Caliph. The more capable and effective the Satraps, the more power and influence they bestowed upon their Caliph and the greater his influence on The Caliphate Council - which meant the gains of the Satraps were more likely to be approved. But, if one of the members of The Caliphate Council gained too much power, the rest combine and order him cut down to size.

Russia

General
As late as the start of the 21st century, Russia is still recovering from the horrors of the Great Patriotic War. The events of the war are deeply scarred into the Russian psyche and the country is paranoid in a way that few can understand. Until they live there and realize what suffering the country endured. Russia is a very close US ally the Russians understanding that even a nation as isolationist as the US needs one friend and Russia is determined to be that friend. The alliance between the United States and Russia is based on closely-intertwined mutual need. Russia lacks the manpower to defend itself against a mass attack and relies on the U.S. nuclear umbrella to deter such an attack. However, the U.S. also relies on Russian forward bases to deliver nuclear attacks. Russia depends on American aid and assistance to rebuild itself from the horrible destruction of WW2 but that aid is predicated on a healthy American economy fueled largely by cheap Siberian oil. In short, America and Russia are joined at the hip.

International
Russia is regarded as nervously as the US, since the Russian motto is never again. They are great believers in pre-emptive retaliation. Given the close alliance between Russia and the US, attacking Russia means SACs bombers will be coming. Russia sees its role as the small, alert guard dog that spots a threat and wakes up the big powerful guard dog in time to do something about it. The Russians believe it is their divinely-imposed duty to confront regimes that are irredeemably evil (they regard Chipan as being redeemably evil but the Caliphate as being irredeemably evil).

Domestic
Russias political system defies easy description. It is neither capitalist nor communist, neither democratic nor dictatorial. Mostly, it’s a fairly anarchistic system. The government very rarely gives orders but when it does give them, they are obeyed or woe to the disobedient. The Government has a clear picture of where it wants to go but prefers to get there by nudges and suggestions rather than dictates. To all intents and purposes, the country is run by the President, but the President is popular if he isn’t, he doesn’t get to be President. Visitors to the country find the most noticeable thing about Russians is their love of children of which there are many. As a result of the dreadful casualties of the Second World War, children are loved, pampered and protected by society as a whole. As a result, parents have no qualms about their children playing unattended in the street all day; they know the whole country has a quarter of an eye on them to see the kids don't come to any harm.

UK

General
Canada is the only significant part of the old Empire that stuck with the UK after The Big One in 1947, largely because the only other real option was to be absorbed by the US. This turned out quite well for both Canada and the UK. There is no formal agreement or alliance between the two but they act closely together in the certain knowledge that if they separate, Canada will become part of America and the UK will be absorbed by Europe. In the final analysis, Canada and the UK are defined by negatives. They are not European, not American.

International
Canada and the UK have a rather greater political impact that Europe (they could hardly have less). They do actually count for something though and American policy makers listen to what they say. This is a combination of practicality (the US defense system has a large Canadian component) and sentiment (the exploits of the British Resistance have become something of a legend). There is, however, a strong strand of anti-Americanism in UK politics, best exemplified by Lord Halifax’s final papers before he was beheaded on Tower Green.

Domestic
Both countries are semi-socialist democracies. They run on feel-good policies that mostly bite them at regular intervals.

United States of America

General.
The USA is the undisputed world hegemon and has been since 1947. There is no power or combination of powers that can pose a serious risk to the country in military or economic terms. Most international political questions end up as how do we do X without upsetting the Americans. America has a huge bomber fleet which is kept at the cutting edge of technology, a strong and capable anti-bomber and anti-missile defense system and a powerful navy that deploys worldwide. The Army, on the other hand is very weak indeed (deliberate policy), a feature only partially offset by a strong Marine Corps. American policy is that if America is attacked, replying to that attack with nuclear weapons is the first resort, not the last.

International
America is frequently feared, disliked and resented. It is an isolationist power with few strong allies. However, America is also a trading nation and its activities are aimed at maintaining a peaceful, stable world where trade can flourish. This commitment is recognized by the international community and, as such, the country’s use of muscle to make sure the world stays peaceful is regarded as being a necessary evil. The best summary of the US international position is that America is regarded as being a particularly vicious guard dog people like its protection but don't want it in the living room. American power is based on its ability to destroy anybody who gets in their way and their demonstrated capability of doing just that. The danger is that if either the capability or the willingness become doubted, there is nothing left to fall back on.

Domestic
Due to US isolationism, foreign policy has been de-emphasized. The normal system is that the government determines strategy, the targeteers determine how to execute the strategy and the weaponeers produce the equipment. In the TBO timeline, the targeteers have absorbed much of the functions of the State Department and the NSC. This has given rise to a remarkable situation where much of American government is carried out by private companies working under contracts from the rest of the Government. This system was challenged by the Democrats during the Johnson administration (1964-1972) and the Carter Administration (1976-1980) but survived and was reinforced during the Reagan era (1980-1988 ) . It remains the backbone of how the US is run.

The US is a prosperous and politically conservative country but with some important exceptions. Due to the destruction of Germany, the peace movement started early and became stronger than might otherwise have been the case. It also became much more militant. During the late 1960s, the hippy movement with its attraction to Eastern Mysticism became a sympathetic local agent of influence for both Chipan and the Triple Alliance. After an initial flirtation with Chipan, the Hippy movement split, the pacifistic idealists tending to associate with the Indian and ASEAN sections of the Triple Alliance, the militant leftists becoming closely associated with Chipan. As a residual of this period, the educational system in the US has been seriously harmed and is actually quite low. Although the standards of scientific research and engineering are unsurpassed and the scientific community is without equal, the day-to-day educational standard has dropped alarmingly. Too much feel good not enough solid learning.

Triple Alliance

General
The Triple Alliance formed between 1947 and 1950 and comprises India, ASEAN and Australia. Its overall philosophy is free-market and free-enterprise but with pronounced regional differences. The three alliance members have reasonably strong and capable armed forces, only slightly less cutting-edge than those of the US. Militarily, India has the largest armed forces, Thailand the best-equipped but Australia has the most skilled and competent manpower. On paper, all policy is decided by unanimous agreement of the three Alliance principles; in reality a small group of administrators make their decisions in private and the public displays of debate and negotiation are a show. India includes what, in our timeline became Pakistan. Australia includes New Zealand and a lot of the Pacific islands. By 2004, ASEAN is Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Burma, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam and Laos. Technically, ASEAN is group an Association of equals but in reality, all policy is determined by Thailand. The balance of power between the three primary Triple Alliance partners is constantly shifting and all three take delight in scoring points off each other. Nevertheless, they are all painfully aware that they have to stick together so nobody pushes the point-scoring to the point of publicly embarrassing one of the others or infringing on any real national interests. At the end of the 20th Century, The Triple Alliance has settled down into a reasonably stable entity. Education standards are extremely high and scientific research is greatly prized (especially other peoples).

International,
The Triple Alliance is seen primarily as a trading partner. In some ways they are seen as America-Light, a version of American without the massive military power but also without the baggage of fear and mistrust. There is a tendency for them to be seen by enemies as an easy victim, a bad mistake that keeps getting repeated. Although the Triple Alliance and America are not allies, America approves of the Triple Alliance and will help them out and has done so on numerous occasions. In addition, Triple Alliance diplomats are viewed quite correctly - as being devious, deceptive and manipulative. If one goes into a revolving door behind you, he or she will come out in front. Most people count their fingers after shaking hands with Triple Alliance diplomats and the answer is often disturbingly far short of five. Triple Alliance enemies are usually left staring at defeat, often without a shot being fired, bemusedly asking themselves How did THAT happen?

Domestic,
The Triple Alliance is a mixture. India is socially very conservative but the drawn-out transition between British rule and local administration means that the country is much better run than could otherwise have been the case. India is the most socialist of the partners with much of its economy centrally run. It has a very powerful, oligarchic civil service that was built on British traditions. India has internal troubles including an ongoing and bloody insurgency in the largely North west and another one in the south of the country. India is the population center of the Alliance and has something like 2/3 the population of the alliance as a whole.

Thailand (and by implication ASEAN) is at the opposite extreme, a devoutly capitalist social and economic anarchy, largely hedonistic in culture where people can more or less do what they want as long as they don't interfere with others. Scandals are commonplace and nobody takes them very seriously. If the country had a motto it would be "Let's make a deal". However, buried underneath the glitz and parties is a country and military forces that works rather well. The government is by businessmen, of businessmen, for businessmen. Thailand is by far the richest part of the Triple Alliance and is the banking and economic center of the Alliance.

Australia is between India and Thailand in culture; it has some of Thailands hedonism without its free-flowing and laissez-faire society. Its most serious problem is a drastic shortage of people it has barely 1.5 percent of the Alliance population as a whole.

North Europe Union

General
As a result of the Second World War, Northern Europe lost virtually all its power and influence. Militarily it is weak to the point of being defenseless, without the German industrial machine at its center, its economic influence is also inconsequential. Europe can basically be defined as a real-world version of Disneyland, it is a holiday resort for American, Russian and Triple Alliance tourists.

Postwar European history can be divided into three phases. The first was the broken-backed stage, resulting from the German occupation. The North European countries were shattered, socially, economically and militarily. This was exacerbated by the Great Famine, an almost complete collapse of agricultural output between 1948 and 1950. Throughout this period into the mid-1950s, Northern Europe was simply trying to survive. The second phase was recovery which took from the mid-1950s through to the late 1970s. This saw Northern Europe rebuilding and developing its own industries and economic structure. In this, they were aided by the lack of any signoficant hostilities in Europe. Without that strain, the European countries had greater resources to devote to recovery and, as a result, they eventually ended up in a somewhat better economic position than would otherwise have been the case.

International
Most of Europe has accepted the fact that is declining into relative insignificance so its position on the world stage is barely noticeable. This is an inevitable outcome of the fact that the center of the political world in the 1950-2000 era was in the Pacific, not the Atlantic. France has not accepted that and still tries to assert a position as one of the leading nations. This leads to ridicule and bad jokes that are not justified since France actually did an amaziingly effective job of rebuilding its military forces and industrial infrastructure. French military power proved entirely adequate to defeat the Caliphate assault on Algeria and Algeria was only overrun after its population had been decimated by biological attack. Europe, as a whole, is a great supporter of international organizations and agreements, seeing these as the only way its much-diminished power can be made effective.

Domestic
North Europe is essentially unified and socialist. Although the individual countries are democratic, the European supra-national entity is not.

The Mediterranean Confederation

General
Another weakly-linked trading alliance in which the individual countries retain their independence and largely go there seperate ways except in closely-defined areas. The core of the MC is an alliance between Spain and Italy post ww2 on the basis that nobody else would talk to them (which gave rise to the joke "Mussolini talks only to Franco and Franco talks only to God."). As the threat of the Caliphate grew, the Mediterranean Confederation was joined by Greece, Turkey and the Balkan states (initially Yogoslavia but then the successor-states to Yugoslavia when that entity broke up).

International
The Mediterranean Confederation has its tone largely set by Italy that underwent a renaissance in the 1950s and 1960s and became the world leader and trend-setter in style, fashion etc. People buy luxury Italian sports cars, women salivate over Italian fashion shows, Italian trends in art, literature, architecture are all watched and copied. The country gets compared favorably with the U.S. that is seen as a cold, technology-obsessed soulless entity by comparison. The rest of the MC basks in the light reflected from Italy. Anybody who has any pretensions to being anybody goes to Italy in holiday (and the really rich have a summer home in Tuscany).

Domestic
There is no common domestic factor linking the members of the MC. They all differ drastically and the looseness of the Confederation allows that (was designed to allow that) to continue. Italy is Catholic and hedonistic, Spain is Catholic and bleakly moralistic, Turkey is Moslem with a secular government, some of the Balkan states are military dictatorships.

Free City of Saigon

Introduction
Downtown Saigon, the ‘Pearl of the Orient,’ ‘Gem of the East,’ where ‘European Sophistication meets Oriental Energy to create a unique fusion'… just reading the travel brochures can give you a headache. The reality? Well the reality is that no city ever lives up to its publicity. Paris in April is rainy and grey according to reliable sources; nobody ever mentions Washington’s mosquitos in summer even though the British Foreign Office used to classify it as a Tropical (Malarial) Posting and Saigon is where Asian traffic meets wide French streets and finally finds the space to fulfil its potential. Napoleon and Violet le Duc might have driven wide boulevards though crowded tenements just in case the mob needed a whiff of grapeshot. But all a round of canister would do in modern Saigon is create a temporary traffic jam before the press of cars, trucks, vans, bicycles, Tuk-Tuk’s, motorcycles, scooters, tricycles, wheelbarrows and pedestrians laid flat by the cannon, were overwhelmed and squashed to pulp under the tide of yet more cars, vans, bicycles… you probably wouldn’t even be able to hear the ultima ratio regium over the roar of humanity and can horns.

History
In the last hundred years, Saigon had bowed to a number of masters; first the French who had colonized Indo-China in the late 19th century, they had given way to the Japanese, who became the Chipanese while nobody was watching, and in turn had been driven out by the Thais in 1951. Not that the Thais had hung around for long. Some people say they took one look at the place and decided it was too much bother. Then again most of those who call the Thai’s lazy haven’t seen a Thai peasant, or his modern alter-ego, a Thai businessman, move when there was a quick buck to be made. The real reason Thailand pulled back to negotiate the status of Saigon was that same ultima ratio regium. The final argument of kings might not be cast in bronze these days, but nuclear weapons and million man armies are even more ultima than Napoleon’s le belle fills which fortunately makes regio’s more conducive to a bit of sensible ratio.

Thailand might have defeated the Chipanese invasion and turned it around to gain territory, establishing what many saw as its traditional border on the Mekong. But there was no way it could ‘win’ a war against Chipan even in the early 50’s when the atomic age was still a looming mushroom cloud on the horizon for everyone but America. When push came to shove Tokyo simply had the sheer mass to overwhelm Thailand by conventional means should the situation warrant it. So Thailand quite sensibly made very certain things never reached that stage. By not pursuing the Chipanese Army over the Mekong and not claiming Saigon, they achieved their own ends and then effectively called the conflict off before things could get much too serious for anyone’s benefit.

Being magnanimous in victory and presenting a face of sensible restraint to the world might have robbed Tokyo of the justification they needed to escalate matters, but it didn’t get Bangkok off the hook. A ‘Border Incident’ could be written off as a misunderstanding, blamed on overzealous underlings, and any subsequent ‘minor’ readjustment of international boundaries could be equally shrugged off. However losing a city the size of Saigon was a very different kettle of Naam Pla. So serious a loss of face for Chipan would have been impossible to dismiss and such humiliation was intolerable. Thus Thailand could not ‘own’ Saigon, Chipan could not ‘lose’ Saigon, and Saigon was much too big to fall into any sort of polite diplomatic limbo and be forgotten about, so Saigon got its fourth and, so far, final change in government.

Like Danzig before the war or Trieste in the months after The Big One, Saigon was to become a ‘Free City’ unclaimed by any nation. It has to be said this was very much a ‘Solomon’s Choice,’ since cutting the baby in half was impossible - well unworkable anyway, but historically such independent cities have had a very sorry record in modern times. Usually it amounts to little more than a cessation of open argument until the next war clarifies ownership. However this suited both sides perfectly, whatever the residents of Saigon might have thought. Chipan wanted nothing more than to regain its lost slice of Indo-China by force of arms and the Thai’s had no problems with waiting for a war to decide the ultimate fate of their new territory and Saigon. It wasn’t that Bangkok had a death wish; they just they knew Chipan would have to win the insurgency in Vietnam before dealing with them. What insurgency? Oh the one the Thai’s were about to start of course. It usually pays to count your toes after shaking hands with a Thai on business matters.

The negotiations were held in Moscow, the Russians being about the most ‘Neutral’ power who cared to have anything to do with the matter, and like most such cases the meat of the deal had all been worked out well in advance. That’s not to say it wasn’t an easy matter to resolve. In public the main sticking point was who should be the Protecting Power. In this situation it was and is usual for a Free City to have a protecting power. Ideally and theoretically they are neutral in the matter, only acting as caretakers and guardians, providing the services of their nation-state and protecting the City from hostile neighbours. Traditionally, when the Free City business is just a matter of face saving between two parties, the role of PP is given to the nation with the best-supported claim and the ‘Free’ aspect becomes more or less a sham, this is roughly what happened in the case of Danzig. Otherwise it is usually a matter of three or more parties who decide to ‘share’ a town and they all take a slice of the action, Shanghai being a prime and germane example.

The problem with Saigon was that neither side was going to let the other do a ‘Poland’ and take sole control, nor was the prospect of Thailand and Chipan sharing power alone a viable option. If relations were not strained enough with the recent war and growing insurgency, the record of Japan’s lack of respect for such niceties in Shanghai, less than a decade before, left no one in any doubt they would seize control in a second if given half a chance. With the need to balance the power of Chipan and the unwillingness of any of the other major world powers to become directly involved, the only solution was for Thailand to bring in its partners in the Triple Alliance, to replicate, in miniature as it were, the larger regional balance of power in Asia. The resulting Four Power Agreement suited everyone, one way or another. In Chipan this public confirmation, that took the next three largest regional players combined to oppose the massed might of Japan and China, was the stuff of propaganda dreams. It allowed them to portray Saigon as an act of generosity rather than the price of a military defeat. As one cartoon of the day had it, the magnanimous Emperor feeding table scraps to the Triple Alliance chickens clucking in the dust.

For India and Australia, Saigon cemented their relationship with Thailand in a concrete way that was the foundation for all that was to follow. Prior to this the alliance was largely a theoretical entity, the two ‘Commonwealth’ nations were pledged to support one another and that support had been extended to Thailand, but each, for the most part, had its own agenda. This new common project forced the foreign policies of the three countries to align as never before. Each was still independent in both intent and practice but the on-going consultation over the city lead to an almost continuous mutual dialog between the three capitols. By taking their part in Saigon, India and Australia stepped up to the crease and took a stance next to the Thais. It marked a new phase of this commitment, that it was no longer a marriage of convenience, but rather now for better or for worse. In effect, Saigon was the practical foundation of the Triple Alliance and established the relationship that would be refined and reforged in Burma and half a dozen other hot spots, over the next decades.

However, it wasn’t a generous spirit of cooperation that induced India and Australia to put their heads on the chopping block next to Thailand, or propaganda that convinced Chipan to negotiate a peaceful settlement. To cut a long story short, it was simple bribery; the Thai’s bought everyone off and the biggest hurdle for the Moscow talks was sorting out how the cash was to be split.

Chipanese economics during the 1950’s are still largely a mystery to the outside world. Aside from a few scholarly works, and no doubt dozens of volumes and reports gathering dust in the archives of various intelligence services, the subject is both obscure and well out of the historical mainstream. What is far better known are the penurious circumstances of both India and Australia during this period. In short they were broke. Both suffered from the drain of substantial defence budgets in addition to; in India the strains of bringing a largely agrarian society into the modern world, and Australia the ongoing transition from an agricultural exporter under the British Empire to an industrial and service economy as an independent nation.

Saigon was, under normal circumstances, a substantial trading hub for both the Asian hinterland through the Mekong River and regional trade in general. As a Free City with the ability to manipulate taxes and duties, unburdened by national economics, it had the potential to become a right little gold mine and everyone knew it. Asia has always seemed to need at least one, if not two free for all trading ports. In the past Shanghai and Hong Kong filled the bill, just as Singapore and Saigon do today.

But back in the 50’s Singapore was still chained to the Federated Malay States and hampered by levels of taxation that made it nowhere near as profitable a place to do business as it later became after independence. Bangkok was still growing into its role as the regional financial capitol and probably could have taken on the trading role too, if Saigon hadn’t offered Thailand the opportunity to have its cake without fouling its own nest, to mix metaphors. Manila was in, and indeed is still in, no position to compete with anyone as a market place. The turmoil of decolonisation combined with a still largely agrarian society meant it had neither the political or economic stability needed to attract this sort of business. All of which left Saigon as a very ripe plum indeed.

Exactly how the spoils were to be divided took the four nations and the Swedish and Russian mediators the better part of half a year to thrash out. All could agree that costs should be split four ways, but profits were another matter altogether. The Triple Alliance maintained a solid front for an equal division along the lines of the cost sharing deal, 25% each after costs and other operating expenses. Chipan refused to see why she should have to pay for Thailand’s ‘cowardice’ in bringing India and Australia into the party and demanded 50% of the gross income.

In the end it came down to 30:70 of the clear profit for Chipan and the TA respectively. Twenty three point three percent was a lot better than a jab in the eye with a sharp stick for India and Australia. Thailand controlled much of the inland territory Saigon would serve so it was going to receive a great deal of direct economic benefit, whatever her share in the cities proceeds. But Chipan, well, they walked away with quite a few fringe benefits in addition to their 30% of the till.

The Free City of Saigon was established as a 25km radius from the Saigon Central Post Office. Don’t ask why they picked the post office, rather than Kilometre Post No.1 just down the street, but that’s the way it was done. This area covered both banks of the Song Saigon out to that 25km radius, but unofficially, it was agreed that the Saigon administrative area would stop on the on the far bank of the river. This meant almost half the Free Zone was still Chipanese and in effect Tokyo never had to pay their share of the ‘admission fee.’ In addition to roughly 350 square miles of land, Chipan also insisted on tax-free status for her Zaibatsu and the power of veto in the Board of Control that was to be the governing council of the new city-state.

Over the years this arrangement has drifted more and more in Chipan’s favour, even though the official ratios haven’t changed, and the Viet Minh gobbled up their ‘free’ land. This isn’t to say they have any more control over the city though, quite the opposite. Only that, in exchange for effective control of the city, the TA have, yet again, bribed Tokyo into letting them do what they want.

The Chipanese position in Saigon might have started with a bang, but it decayed rapidly into a whimper before it stabilised into a state of well-fed slumber. The four countries were represented on the initial Board of Control by three old and wise diplomats from the TA with extensive staffs and a plan they’d been hammering out behind closed doors for several months. Tokyo on the other hand, sent in the Army, in the form of General Arima Kihei.

Kihei was no foaming lunatic. Actually he came from an old aristocratic family, with a roll of distinguished service to the Emperor as long as your arm, and an ancestral sword of about the same length. Unfortunately the only code of law he was familiar with was Bushido and his only relevant experience for the job was having been a junior officer at Nanking in 1938.

History doesn’t record what Kihei thought of his fellow board members, and although one of the Indian delegation published a bit of ‘Kiss and Tell’ a few years ago, we haven’t seen the TA members opinions of Kihei in print either. I rather suspect the General was a bit annoyed at being sent out on such a ‘civilian’ job amongst the garlic eaters and Gaijin, because he seems to have taken a great deal of pleasure in making the other board members hop. Right from the start he set a very bullish tone and I don’t think it took the TA more then a few days (if not a couple of seconds) to work Kihei out and realise that resistance, like reason, would be futile.

Essentially Kihei’s plan seems to have been to squeeze Saigon mercilessly and bully the TA into letting him run the whole show. It didn’t take long before Saigon started to lose money rather then earn it, and I wouldn’t say this process was not helped along by various people who might, perchance, describe Thailand, India or Australia as ‘home.’ In ‘The Five Rings’ Musashi tells us to suppress the enemy’s useful actions, but allow, or encourage his useless ones, I can’t say if ‘The Five Rings’ was common bedside reading in diplomatic circles at the time. Perhaps ‘Stalky & Co’ was more the go. Either way the TA played the good General like a fiddle, right up to the Shibberwichee. Through a judicious mix of obstructionism and over-helpfulness the TA managed to back Kihei into a corner in a little under four months. Not particularly quick I must admit, but then they were trying to establish the administrative basis of the city at the same time, so reconciling the two must have taken some nifty footwork.

Kihie’s replacement was a diplomat by the name of Jujiro Matsuda, who proved to be a very different sort of Japanese civil servant. Rumour has it that Matsuda was sent to Saigon with a single instruction ‘get the money flowing’ and he did just that. At the time, the ‘Gnomes of Nara’ were a little appreciated factor outside Chipan, and I can’t say they’re much better known now. But the Chipanese Ministry of Finance, known inside the country with a mixture of fear, loathing and respect as the ‘Satsu no Hokannin,’ were, and I suspect still are, the power behind the power behind the Imperial Japanese Government, and as such they have the gravitas to make any other arm of government jump, should they chose to do so. The point, only dimly realised at the time, was that it was Ministry of Finance who called the shots over Saigon, and their motivation was purely economic.

With the appointment of Matsuda, the Army turned Chipanese influence in Saigon over to the Foreign Ministry, and the Foreign Ministry retained it solely on the condition that it continued to pour funds into the Imperial coffers. Matsuda discovered what’s aptly named the ‘Matsuda principal’ in certain circles. The rest of us would call it masterful inactivity. Everyone wanted to make money in Saigon, and the easiest way for Chipan to assist the process was just to stay the hell out of the way. The more the Chipanese withdrew their fingers from the pie, the more energetic the TA seemed to become, until eventually Chipan did nothing, the TA did everything and the only reason the Chipanese representatives bothered to keep turning up to Board of Control meetings was to check the books, or if Tokyo had a request to make.

By the late 70’s the odd situation had developed where by Saigon had become one of Chipan’s three ‘windows on the world’ along with Nagasaki and Shanghai, and it was not only the most profitable of the three, the Zaibatsu were making a mint, but also the one Chipan had the least control over. Even today some of the tallest skyscrapers in the city bear the names Mitsubishi, Hitachi and the Imperial Bank of Japan, and skyscrapers are a potent symbol in a city built on alluvial mud and a high water table. The costs of construction make anything over about 20 stories pretty much uneconomic, and 4 to 10 floors seem to be the most popular compromise for commercial properties in Saigon.

Map of the world in 1980.

There were quite a few issues in how the world of TBOverse was 'laid out', with some aspects making sense and others being personal flourishes. In the latter category, we find the gangster-libertarian paradise of Cuba and the extraordinary wealth and rise in status of Thailand.

Even in a world turned upside down as of 1947, the latter sticks out like the private parts of a dog. Thailand, with the addition of Laos, is somehow wealthier than India or Australia. As of 1950 in @, Thailand had a GDP of $16.375 billion, compared to 77 billion for Australia + NZ and 222 billion for India (all figures in 1990 USD following the late Angus Maddison's data). Even GDP/capita doesn't sway things Thailand's way, nor does adding in the Hongs from Hong Kong et al. Today, Thailand is 27th in the world in the nominal GDP stakes, ~30% of Australian GDP alone and about 1/7th of India, but that is admittedly in a very different world. However, there simply isn't the scope, natural resources, capital, industry or exports to magically push Thailand onto the top table of all nations. One gets the feeling that the reason it was 'promoted' in TBOverse is more of a personal liking for Thailand than any clear logical reasoning.

The relatively positive way that organised crime was depicted in the mainline TBO stories and the Conrad offshoots that largely replaced them wasn't limited to Cuba, but the process began there. It does come across as an authorial flourish rather than a logical and natural progression of events.

Some other aspects, such as the reverse trajectory of Britain ('from zero to hero') were more fleshed out and showed the benefit of having multiple people having input in their development. The curious case of France shows how things can moderate over time, from the height of anti-French flourishes in the 2003 of the original story to their measured recovery in status from a punchline. The Caliphate is a case of going into too much detail, causing the concept to start to fray at the edges.

Good points Simon.

But this all was Stuart having fun. His world, his assumptions etc.

I had some legal issues with a scene from Destroying Angel and discussed them with him. But, his world.

When are you going to get off your arse, finish your degree and get admitted. Should raise the average IQ of the legal profession.

Jonathan

Jonathan,

I give him a very big pass on most things, as it was his world, but it would be like Belgium or Peru becoming a great power. Theoretically not entirely out of the realms of the possible, but that's the very best that can be said. If the storyline has at its basis a claim and perception of 'hard' AH, then I do it the courtesy of holding it to its own standards.

TBOverse began with the very hard original analysis of what the B-36 could do, German capacity against a massed attack and other factors, then carried on with it through detailed analysis of how ABM and the B-70 could be afforded, breaking down the costs against the @ expenditure on ICBMs and SLBMs. This to me places it in the 'hard' end of the scale by intent as well as by deeds; therefore, it should be judged on the scale of its own choosing. One can't really reasonably seek to be respected as a realist, hard AH story on one hand and then get every pass under the sun for quite vital worldbuilding on the other hand. I would contrast this with the 'talking bombers' aspect that some critics elsewhere get their knickers in a knot over, as it is simply a storytelling device and purely cosmetic flourish, which is quite distinct from Thailand becoming one of the 6 greatest powers in the entire world. Nuking Germany off the map doesn't carry logic with it.

When it comes to alternate history writing, my preferences can be quite clearly seen in my own works. If the fantastical is to be included, and I'm all for it, then it needs to be balanced with a hard/solid foundation in others. I like to think of it as the Jim Hacker Ministerial Broadcast Background principle.

As for little old me, I started first semester of my final year, so I've got this year plus ~7-8 months of the GDLP to go after that. I decided to 'reward' myself by doing Law of the Sea as an elective in second semester after Income Tax in this half of the year.

It is out of respect for Stuart that I am moved to make these comments. He always responded very gracefully to the bits and pieces of constructive criticism that I tendered when he was around and, in his much mourned absence, the best tribute that I can see is not unquestioning hagiography (not that anyone has gone down that path here), but rather the same even handed and cool analysis that he bought to the table.

Simon

Simon Darkshade wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 2:42 am Jonathan,

I give him a very big pass on most things, as it was his world, but it would be like Belgium or Peru becoming a great power. Theoretically not entirely out of the realms of the possible, but that's the very best that can be said. If the storyline has at its basis a claim and perception of 'hard' AH, then I do it the courtesy of holding it to its own standards.

TBOverse began with the very hard original analysis of what the B-36 could do, German capacity against a massed attack and other factors, then carried on with it through detailed analysis of how ABM and the B-70 could be afforded, breaking down the costs against the @ expenditure on ICBMs and SLBMs. This to me places it in the 'hard' end of the scale by intent as well as by deeds; therefore, it should be judged on the scale of its own choosing. One can't really reasonably seek to be respected as a realist, hard AH story on one hand and then get every pass under the sun for quite vital worldbuilding on the other hand. I would contrast this with the 'talking bombers' aspect that some critics elsewhere get their knickers in a knot over, as it is simply a storytelling device and purely cosmetic flourish, which is quite distinct from Thailand becoming one of the 6 greatest powers in the entire world. Nuking Germany off the map doesn't carry logic with it.

When it comes to alternate history writing, my preferences can be quite clearly seen in my own works. If the fantastical is to be included, and I'm all for it, then it needs to be balanced with a hard/solid foundation in others. I like to think of it as the Jim Hacker Ministerial Broadcast Background principle.

As for little old me, I started first semester of my final year, so I've got this year plus ~7-8 months of the GDLP to go after that. I decided to 'reward' myself by doing Law of the Sea as an elective in second semester after Income Tax in this half of the year.

It is out of respect for Stuart that I am moved to make these comments. He always responded very gracefully to the bits and pieces of constructive criticism that I tendered when he was around and, in his much mourned absence, the best tribute that I can see is not unquestioning hagiography (not that anyone has gone down that path here), but rather the same even handed and cool analysis that he bought to the table.

Simon

Shrug, I guess I am on the other end of the spectrum then because for me by far the most important thing in alternate history is to have a good story. Everything else is secondary to that. I certainly respect something more when the author tries to keep some realism in their stories but expecting an author to be an absolute expert in everything they are writing about would mean we would get very little written.

Stuart was more libertarian than I and obviously had a greater interest in\respect for criminal culture than I do but I have always been able to enjoy reading stories even if they don't agree with my politics as long as the politics in the story doesn't overwhelm everything else. One of the reasons I enjoyed the Armageddon stories so much is they are written in a way that it is hard to tell which political sympathies the author has. Both Republican and Democratic parties and presidents are given moments to shine and are also on rare occasions made fun of.

That's fair enough as a general principle. My point was that if one is to claim to be a hard, realistic story in several aspects, then that is the measure that a story is measured by. The best parts of the 'mainline' TBOverse stories of 1947-1980s were the harder elements, rather than the story aspects, such as drama/real threat, deep characters and a solid internal structure. I don't think any reasonable reader expects an author to be an expert in everything, but when expertise is the selling point, then there is a certain expectation of it.

The rather silly George R.R. Martin has the idiotic criticism of Tolkien of 'What is Aragorn's tax policy?' This comes across as idiotic as that wasn't Tolkien's style or oeuvre whatsoever and ignores the difference between high and low fantasy. I'd draw a parallel of the differences between hard AH and soft AH, but also a more simpler one - Tolkien gets a pass on taxes because the story had nothing to do with them and did not mention them at all. The building blocs of a hard military technothriller are myriad, but in this case, I call out the bits that stand out. Thailand being one of the richest countries in the world is one of them.

I don't have any liking or respect for criminal culture, but my objection to the glorification of Mafia Cuba was that it came in stories that were overwhelmed by politics and thus didn't allow for real development or enjoyment. The mainline TBOverse stories were inherently linked up with politics and settling scores, sometimes quite graphically, with various historical figures and had a number of flaws, such as not having any sense of drama from the US having no possible match. When the scales are loaded to the extent that they were by the events of 1947's TBO, it becomes inherently difficult to write a technothriller when there is no real thrill or risk.

When Stuart moved on from the mainline stories of TBO, Anvil of Necessity, The Great Game, Crusade and Ride of the Valkyries, he found his real area to shine. The pre TBO WW2 novels built around the Russian Front, even those with the shadow of the Bomb about them, were tauter, better written yarns with a good structure, effective climaxes and some very well wrought characters and ultimately worked because they did have an effective Big Bad/opponent. Even better was to come when he went down the path of Conrad, as he developed into an adroit mystery writer with a dab hand for quirky characters and well portrayed set pieces; whatever misgivings over the Mary Sue aspects of Angel or the bit too admiring portrayal of the Triads I had about those stories was subsumed by the exact same thing that you point out - the politics and what have you were overwhelmed by the story. I can't speak to Armageddon, as I haven't read it, due my own religious and moral beliefs and from what I have gathered about the lack of any drama in the '21st century humanity vs Bronze Age mooks' set up. It hearkens back to the figurative thumb on the scales issue of 1947-1980s TBOverse.

So I find myself agreeing with the main point of your second paragraph whilst respectfully disagreeing on the first. That is all fine.

Simon Darkshade wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:09 pm I can't speak to Armageddon, as I haven't read it, due my own religious and moral beliefs and from what I have gathered about the lack of any drama in the '21st century humanity vs Bronze Age mooks' set up. It hearkens back to the figurative thumb on the scales issue of 1947-1980s TBOverse.

So I find myself agreeing with the main point of your second paragraph whilst respectfully disagreeing on the first. That is all fine.

Shrug, more than fair, as different people are going to have different preferences when reading a story.

I will say the one criticism of Stuart's writing that I have is that antagonists of his nation-state-based stories almost always feel like they have no chance of winning. Most of the novels feel like curb stomps.

Absolutely on the second paragraph. This carried over into the Armageddon stories from the descriptions and discussions I’ve read. If you build up one side/country with boundless wealth, all of the right ideas and preternaturally skilled strategic guidance from behind the curtain, then there will need to be a commensurately big threat.

The absence of this ripped away a big element of drama and tension from the mainline TBO stories, which resulted in fairly flat plots and dry story progression; Stuart’s best features of his writing at that stage were his technical knowledge and ability to paint the big picture, but this didn’t quite work as good as it could without the atmosphere given by dramatic tension.

Tom Clancy had a similar issue in his post Cold War books after the Big Bad Bear went away, but his situation was exacerbated by progressively killing off each opponent in a single book to the point of running out of foes. In TBO, the first book did this, with the elimination of Germany and Russia flipping to become BFFs of America leaving no real suitable enemy. Japan was flirted with as a basis for a Trans-Pacific Cold War, but were quickly nerfed; the Caliphate were not a really effective villain due to being in a completely different power category.

Once you stack the deck too heavily in favour of your protagonist nation, then there goes any chance of a decent story unless you raise others to match. This doesn’t mean it has to be a fair fight, or that there must be an even match with balancing factors all the way through - some of the greatest stories play the tropes straight and have the good guys win the day. But there needs to be some tension, rather than a mechanical description of how Cool Aircraft X, Weapons System Y and Strategy Z decimate the hapless enemy who fight with blunted swords. Even the great ‘defeats’ suffered by the US in TBO weren’t really defeats. Whatever the reasons for choosing this, it didn’t make for strong stories in this respect. Imagine The Big One where there is actually some degree of doubt, risk and uncertainty in the mission against Germany.

Tack back to his WW2 Russian Front stories, and we find Stuart hitting his target. There is a clear threat, clear tension and clear drama, which also allows a better background for characters to emerge. TBO, in comparison simply has a collection of cameos without real character description except maybe for Goering; working in catchphrases of boots to the head rather pales in comparison. The Russian Front stories showed the benefit of writing a lot improving the craft and skill of the author - and time and practice help any man - and on top of this, the circumstance and meta setting played to Stuart’s strengths.

Curbstomp victories can be cathartic, but making good art out of them is difficult.

Stuart seemed fond of foregone conclusions. Somewhat perversely, this tended to make his antagonists more sympathetic than the protagonists. In TBO, the plight of the lone German pilot trying to sink a US carrier, or later the one using every ounce of his skill to try and bring down just one B-36, made them much more interesting to follow than the crew of the Texas Lady.

In the one-sided naval battle in the Orkneys, the most interesting story was the captain of the lone surviving German ship, trying to hold his crippled vessel together until it could find a shore to beach on.

The Armageddon-verse's most interesting chapters were always the ones where Belial or Michael were trying to scheme some way to win using the shitty hand of cards they were holding.

The more even battles did generally make for better reading - several have mentioned the Finland chapters in Winter Warriors. I would also highlight the carrier battle in the Falklands War story and my personal favorite, the Indo-Japanese naval battle.

For me, the 'sole little survivor' trope happened a bit too often to the point of becoming predictable, on top of the predictability of the curbstomp battles. Frequently, the 'good guys' (usually Americans but also Russian at one point) not only had the overwhelming edge in equipment, but had it in absolutely Biblical numbers - consider the size of the US fleet in Winter Warriors, the B-36 fleet in TBO, the Russian forces in The Great Game and the USN airpower and SAC air fleet in Crusade and Ride of the Valkyries. There might be someone out there who can write that as a tense, dramatic and engaging piece of spectacle that also provides the human element, but it wasn't Stuart and isn't me or any author I've come across.

The paradigm is fairly simple - if you have The Good Guys outnumbered, then their victory can be dramatic and pay off in spades. If there is a close, even match up of capabilities, with both sides having some unexpected arrows in their quiver, then that can also be effective. Consider how many films have been made of Midway vs The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. This is not to say that every battle and every conflict must be like this - that is as hackneyed and artificial as nothing but 100-0 or 99-1 scorelines - but that it gives a work more scope to grow and develop when the thumb isn't on the scales.

I definitely agree on the last part, with the close battles being engaging. It is interesting to note that WW and LR, two of the works cited, came later in the process of Stuart's writing development, whilst the cut throat naval battles was in Ride of the Valkyries, which was right at the end of the 'mainline' sequence in the date of writing. To me, this suggests that there was some really good development from 2006/07 onwards in the writing that Stuart did churn out and it compares favourably with the earlier foundational works.

(A last point on the Thai economic situation. In 1969, they had a GDP of $6.7 billion, government spending of ~$400 million and a defence budget of $180 million; in TBO, they are putting TSR-2s into squadron service, alongside supersonic jet fighters and supporting a decent sized army and reserve forces. Even with 10 times that GDP and defence budget, it would still be difficult to put together that type of high-tech force structure. The nearest comparably sized first world economy to Thailands in 1969 was New Zealand; the combined Australia and NZ of TBO would struggle to field the entire force structure described for it, as there was mention in one of the works of Australia having a depression for most of the 1950s.

Thailand is made into a great power and the Chinese Triads have enormous influence and power is one thing, but another curious one was a reply that Stuart made at some point in 2017-2019 to my posting of some historical data on the Chinese population in Britain. There, he said it must be a case of the Chinese flying under the radar and being understated, as was their want, rather than the size and extent of said population not being as great as he thought. The conclusion to draw is that he liked and admired the Orient.)

Villainous underdog stories can work, but they work when you have an antagonist who is unusually brilliant and capable, who is actually capable of turning the tables on the superior forces of the good guys - until narrowly stopped by an unusually capable hero.

Think of the movie Die Hard, it’s actually one underdog story inside of another. Hans Gruber and his twelve guys outwit hundreds of cops who have the building surrounded, while John McClane outfights Hans Gruber and his twelve guys one by one and barely stays alive. It’s a classic action film, and those were career-defining roles for Alan Rickman and Bruce Willis.

In the Star Wars universe, the Thrawn books by Timothy Zahn are widely admired, where a brilliant admiral starts leading the Empire’s remnants on a very successful campaign against the by now thoroughly larger and stronger Alliance.

Michael the Archangel in Pantheocide was written in this fashion, which is why I found his chapters very enjoyable, and he’s definitely one of Stuart’s most memorable major characters.

Another quirk of his writing was that the main characters in his stories were often forgettable, but he had a knack for creating bit parts that would stick with you. I cannot for the life of me tell you who was flying the Texas Lady, or fighting in the snow in Karelia, who any of the Seer’s fellow demons were - but I distinctly remember the crew chief yelling about DEMOCRATS on a sinking ship, the mason who has to repair Yahweh’s throne room every time he throws a tantrum and destroys it, and the two Japanese kempeitei guys who would only ask each other questions and never address anyone else directly.

I haven’t seen Die Hard or read the Star Wars EU or, thankfully, any of the Armageddon stories. Capable antagonists actually capable of defeating America were not features of TBO at any point.

Memorable bit pieces are a good thing, if they come across as real and seamlessly integrated, rather than the cameo caricature approach of early TBO. They got better and better, emerging into a rather insightful authorial eye.

The basic principle can be understood even without having seen a particular example, there are plenty of others. The antagonists must present a credible threat in order to have compelling drama - you can still have them do that if they’re weaker by making them smarter to compensate, or framing the story around that weaker foe managing to isolate and act against a small part of the protagonists’ larger force.

There’s a well crafted film called The Beast about the Russians in Afghanistan where a Russian tank platoon goes on a rampage through an Afghan village. One of the crews takes a wrong turn after its radio broke down and ends up lost and wandering around on its own, while the local mujahideen gather and chase it around seeking revenge.

Something like that might have made a fine plotline for a TBOverse novel, one bomber crew somehow ending up on their own against everything the enemy has to throw at them. I can also imagine a spin on the Hunt for the Red October, with some band of defectors trying to bring the latest top secret US nuclear bomber over to one of their enemies.

The Beast is an epic movie. Jason Patric and that bloke off of Basic Instinct what got killed in the lift.

They called me Tank Boy!

One of the TBO books, or a major subplot of it, is basically BAT-21. Marisol’s death from memory.