Talk:Chinese Federation

Since this is now the United States of China, the article should be moved and all mention of the Chinese Fedration should considered as the previous name.

Anubis zero


 * I don't think so. As what was once the federation is now divided between UN and Britannian Rule (both dominions without with any real connection to the former state), neither can be considered a successor state. Therefore the USC should have its own article if there is enough info to merit it, and be directed to at the bottom of this page.The Myotis 22:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Factual correction
It seems like a constitutional monarchy has been suggested by the author of this article. However, in my personal opinion, such form of government is not likely to be favoured by the Chinese culture after the end of Qing dynasty.

In the early 20th century, Chinese citizens have generally transformed much of their thinking with respect to monarchial governance. If the "United States of China" is, according to the article, formed in the 1960s, then what is more likely to result is some sort of presidential system, instead of a constitutional monarchy. The reason for that is simple - there is simply no emporer to follow or admire (or to be loyal to). In the early 20th century until the mid of 20th century after the WWII, the new generation of Chinese has been influenced by the revolution and so much of the people has abandoned the idea of having a monarch (bear in mind most Chinese are Han Chinese, who dislike the governce of the Manchurians who formed the Qing dynasty).

I would think that if "USC" exist in history, it might as well start with what Sun Yat-Sen's idea of a "San Men Zhu Yi" - namely, the "three principles of governing". Such principle is simpler to those in the western system, where the government is such that government of the people, by the people, for the people (which is actually identical to s1 of the Taiwanese Constitution of GuoMinDang)

Despite it sounds like a democracy, I don't think it will be so in the early stage ... China is seriously a poor country at that time (especially after WWII) and that a military based governance is expected to take place to prevent any distablising acts in particular regions. It will be hard to predict its early diplomatic relationship with other superpowers in the early stage ... since China will be a bit of a cross-over between a government which exerts a substantial degree of military involvement in the exercise of its executive power (which is kind of like the Soviet Union), but also having a Constitution that seems democratic in nature (like the US or UK).

Anyway, what I am trying to say is, the development of which the article describes isn't quite realistic as it did not take into consideration of Chinese culture and social changes during the post-Qing dynasty era, and should be subject to review.

203.59.53.214 15:33, May 20, 2013 (UTC)JY


 * The issue with what you say is very simple, and fundamentally undermines your entire argument: Code Geass is based on an alternate universe. WW2 didn't happen, because the nations important to it didn't really exist at the time. There was no revolution at the end of Qing dynasty - we're not even sure the Qing Dynasty even happened. In history, the Chinese Federation couldn't exist... but neither would Britannia or the EU as it's presented. The concerns you bring up are relevant to attempting to world-build Code Geass, but this Wikia is trying to keep to the facts of the matter, and as such, your concerns are not relevant to it. Mr SP (talk) 15:48, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

How on earth can a monarchy operate with communist ideologies. This doesn't even make any sense. Also how the hell can the High Eunuchs actually benefit through distributing wealth amongst citizens? Actually, screw it. I shouldn't be surprised. This is Code Geass after all. Functional politics have been thrown out the window. In that regard the government section is actually commendably suitable. -- NecrusIV -(Talk |My Wiki) 06:33, April 6, 2014 (UTC)