"Nations Added!" Topic

On your member profile, you can now select Vietnam and Estonia.

Any more requests?

Bongolesia.

Texas.

Upstate NY should be separate from NYC.

No Hollow Earth Nations are listed at all.

Tomainia?
Osterlich?

Freedonia?

Musoria?
Oceania?

People's Republic of Yorkshire

The Princessipate of Saxe Burlap und Schleswig-Beerstein

Sealand …..

link

Frothers

People's Republic of Yorkshire

That would be South Yorkshire to be more precise. I don't think we want a People's Republic in the West or North.

England?

Just asking

Phil

East Upper Lower Northern Yousebecky Beckystan!

Slobbovia, of which I was once Czar.

Rhodesia?

The Dominions of Travlos

Atlantis?

Ruritania.
Carjackistan.

Middle-Earth!

Rhodesia added!

Ummmmm…..
Does Rhodesia exist any more?
Didn't it become Zimbabwe?
And I think you will find few Wargamers in Zimbabwe.

Good catch Winston.

The Principality of Hut River Province?

Rhodesia only exists in the minds of people bitter over the end of apartheid and colonialism.

I don't know. If you were born in the Ottoman Empires European territory, or the Austo-Hungarian Empire would you say I was born in Greece, Bulgaria, or in Austria or Hungary?

I mean my grandmother was born in Sukhumi during Czarist Russia times. Should she say she was born in Georgia?

Though I get that this is not were you were born but were you live in, which yes is fishy.

In terms of where you were born, yes you go with the name of the place as it existed at that date, which means millions of people alive today were born in the USSR, with parents born in the Russian Empire. But nobody lives in Rhodesia or the USSR today.

Does Rhodesia exist any more?
Didn't it become Zimbabwe?

Whoops… corrected!

I hear Mr Mugabe plays 40K with Genestealers.

Hehe.
I was kidding with the Rhodesia thing. But I suppose it would make sense. Someone born there during or before the UDI years of 1965-79 could make the factual claim to be from Rhodesia. I know of at least two TMP members this would apply to.

A case could be made that since Mugabe's election was obtained via widespread election fraud and voter intimidation, his rule (and by extension the county's name change) could considered to be illegitimate. Since the name of the country at the time of it's last legitimate general election was "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia", that might be a more correct term.

But I'm pedantic that way! ;-)

Finally…
>>>Rhodesia only exists in the minds of people bitter over the end of apartheid and colonialism.

Wow.
That's a pretty mean spirited and accusatory thing to say. It also betrays a lack of basic knowledge on the subject you're attempting to speak about. "Apartheid" had nothing to do with Rhodesia. You confusing it for a completely different country: Rhodesia's neighbors across the Limpopo River to the South.

Martin

You're right, they weren't South Africa, they were even worse. A rogue racist state without international recognition, that prematurely declared independence from England in order to prevent the disenfranchised black majority from participating in the post-colonial government.

That's a pretty mean spirited and accusatory thing to say.

You really have little idea about what you are talking about, do you? Have you done any research on this at all? I suspect not given the venom and key-board pounding outrage tone and factual inaccuracies of your above post.

There is no comparison between South Africa and Rhodesia. The system of South African laws that limited movement, employment, and association generally known as "Apartheid" had no equivalent in Rhodesia. Voting rights were indeed limited, but they were based upon property ownership, not race. While it's true this effected black Rhodesians harder than other groups, it also meant that a surprisingly high number of Whites were also unable to vote. Likewise a full 25% of the Rhodesian parliament was set aside for black representatives.

Was it perfect? Of course not. But it was hardly the hell on earth that its detractors like to pretend. It was the closest thing to a functioning republic in sub-Saharan Africa at the time.

Are you aware (and it's a rhetorical question as you clearly are not) that at the height of the Bush War (circa '78-79) that a full 75% of Rhodesian Security Forces were made up of black troops? The percentage is probably even higher as this number only counts the regular forces, and does not factor in irregulars such as Guard Force and Security Force Axillary units. This is despite the fact that blacks were never subject to conscription in Rhodesia. Why would so many choose to fight for such an awful and oppressive government? I have heard it said, with some justification, that race relations were actually better in Rhodesia at the time of UDI than they were in the United States at the time.

>>>prematurely declared independence from England

Do you know what the only other country that has ever unilaterally declared independence from the UK is?

I'm probably wasting my time here. In any event, this is also not the subject of this thread, so we're off topic. So I'll allow you the last word on the subject now. I'm nice that way.

Martin

You're seriously defending Rhodesia? so your perception of reality at least is heavily colored by political bias.

A good friend of mine still considers himself a Yugoslavian citizen, currently residing in Croatia.
That's the country he grew up and served to defend, and that's the only country he considers home.

I always felt bad for him. It's hard to imagine that feeling of displacement.

Trench Raider:
Don't take the bait.

For our overseas audience, this is why Bill discourages politics. Because half of Americans hold one world-view, the other half holds a different worldview, and the only overlap is a mutual agreement that the sky can be considered "blue".

The sky is blue but they'll still argue about who made it that way, and whether it'd be bluer with more or less regulation ;)

Weasel:
Yeah, I can relate. I may have told this story before, but I used to work with, and considered a friend, a Rhodesian expat. He was one of the factors that got me interested in that conflict to begin with. I was there one day when someone asked him why he still called it "Rhodesia" and refused to use the "Z word". I still remember the general content of his reply:

"Imagine what it would be like if the US were under constant attack by a number of terrorist groups that were being sheltered by Mexico and Canada. Imagine fighting in the war and being called up for repeated call ups and having a number of friends and relatives die in the conflict. But in the end, it's all for naught, and a variety of internal and external factors conspire to cause the terrorists to win and take power. You have to leave the country as you know there will never be a place for you there, having fought for the previous government. Would YOU ever refer to your home (the place you were born in, grew up in, fought for, and had friends die for) by the name those evil people gave it?"

He said it with heartfelt conviction and it hit home for me. Folks like our friend above just don't get it.

Speaking of which…
Mallen:
Yeah, I had him pegged for what he was when he was just tossing around insults, emotional buzz words, and propaganda without even attempting to refute the historical facts I cited. I know his sort, and they are not worth the time. That's why I just pulled the plug on the exchange.

Martin

Who gives a ?

back on topic,

Wessex! All hail King Ecbert!

what is wessex?

Dear Brunet

It's a brand of rather unpleasant tasting cooking oil made from the stuff you drain out of the crankcase.

New Mexico, its a whole nother 3rd world country…

Wessex – an Anglo-Saxon Kingdom covering modern South West England. Eventually became the dominant Kingdom and the basis of a united England.

In terms of where you were born, yes you go with the name of the place as it existed at that date

Well, if you're the type who supports the oppression of the culture of an invaded and subjugated people, that's what you do. That was certainly the official position of the Soviet Union.