|
|
Post by Middlesex_Toffeeman on Apr 13, 2019 8:03:49 GMT
With a point of divergence from no earlier than January 1st 1970, have a country, with the same characteristics as Soviet Russia (state capitalist or socialist economic system, one-party state, official ideology of Communism) be extant in part or the whole of the territory of the Soviet Union.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836 
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Apr 13, 2019 9:23:38 GMT
With a point of divergence from no earlier than January 1st 1970, have a country, with the same characteristics as Soviet Russia (state capitalist or socialist economic system, one-party state, official ideology of Communism) be established in part or the whole of the territory of the Soviet Union.
Well its fictional but I have considered that if there had been a coup late on against the idiot running the Soviet Union for most of the war against the US in James's Red Dawn TL you could have had a SU that emerged in a pretty good position compared to its rivals and hence possibly gained a significantly extended life-span. Doubt it would have lasted as long as to the present day but could have lasted at least a decade or so longer, especially if the US gets bogged down in wars in Latin America.
However do you mean a SU surviving longer or by being established after the fall of the OTL a new SU equivalent arises from its ashes? That might be more diffiuclt and it would depend on how you do comparisons. While his approach is more like Nazi Germany - cult of personality, rabid nationalism, high levels of corruption - Putin's rule has many Soviet characteristics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Middlesex_Toffeeman on Apr 13, 2019 9:28:11 GMT
With a point of divergence from no earlier than January 1st 1970, have a country, with the same characteristics as Soviet Russia (state capitalist or socialist economic system, one-party state, official ideology of Communism) be established in part or the whole of the territory of the Soviet Union.
Well its fictional but I have considered that if there had been a coup late on against the idiot running the Soviet Union for most of the war against the US in James's Red Dawn TL you could have had a SU that emerged in a pretty good position compared to its rivals and hence possibly gained a significantly extended life-span. Doubt it would have lasted as long as to the present day but could have lasted at least a decade or so longer, especially if the US gets bogged down in wars in Latin America.
However do you mean a SU surviving longer or by being established after the fall of the OTL a new SU equivalent arises from its ashes? That might be more diffiuclt and it would depend on how you do comparisons. While his approach is more like Nazi Germany - cult of personality, rabid nationalism, high levels of corruption - Putin's rule has many Soviet characteristics.
Cleared that up for you. |
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Apr 14, 2019 5:34:51 GMT
Have somebody other than Boris Yeltsin in charge of the RSFSR. If someone more loyal were in his position he would not have declared Russian independence from the Soviet Union, which was the nail in the coffin of the whole Bolshevik enterprise. After Yeltsin did so, many of the other Republics that otherwise would have been willing to remain in the Union, such as the Central Asian Republics, would not have declared independence.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Apr 14, 2019 11:35:40 GMT
Have somebody other than Boris Yeltsin in charge of the RSFSR. If someone more loyal were in his position he would not have declared Russian independence from the Soviet Union, which was the nail in the coffin of the whole Bolshevik enterprise. After Yeltsin did so, many of the other Republics that otherwise would have been willing to remain in the Union, such as the Central Asian Republics, would not have declared independence.
Would they have been willing to stay as leaving gave them a lot more control of events in their country, which would be important for those in power at least? Although if you have a Bolshevik loyalist in power does the empire die peacefully or does it try and maintain it by force. Don't forget Yeltsin became president in May 1990 at which point places like E Germany still technically existed so you could see an hard liner seeking to hold in by force eastern Europe as well as the areas that wanted to break away from the old USSR itself.
Even if most/all of Central Asia decided to stay in such a union the Baltics and Caucasian states will want to leave, along with all the old WP members getting out from Soviet/Russian control and very likely Ukraine, which is the other most important state demographically and economically.
|
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Apr 14, 2019 21:51:03 GMT
Have somebody other than Boris Yeltsin in charge of the RSFSR. If someone more loyal were in his position he would not have declared Russian independence from the Soviet Union, which was the nail in the coffin of the whole Bolshevik enterprise. After Yeltsin did so, many of the other Republics that otherwise would have been willing to remain in the Union, such as the Central Asian Republics, would not have declared independence.
Would they have been willing to stay as leaving gave them a lot more control of events in their country, which would be important for those in power at least? Although if you have a Bolshevik loyalist in power does the empire die peacefully or does it try and maintain it by force. Don't forget Yeltsin became president in May 1990 at which point places like E Germany still technically existed so you could see an hard liner seeking to hold in by force eastern Europe as well as the areas that wanted to break away from the old USSR itself.
Even if most/all of Central Asia decided to stay in such a union the Baltics and Caucasian states will want to leave, along with all the old WP members getting out from Soviet/Russian control and very likely Ukraine, which is the other most important state demographically and economically.
What I remember reading somewhere is that the Central Asian republics were very economically integrated with Russia and were willing to remain politically unified to keep those ties. I will need to read more on this. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Apr 15, 2019 16:05:27 GMT
Would they have been willing to stay as leaving gave them a lot more control of events in their country, which would be important for those in power at least? Although if you have a Bolshevik loyalist in power does the empire die peacefully or does it try and maintain it by force. Don't forget Yeltsin became president in May 1990 at which point places like E Germany still technically existed so you could see an hard liner seeking to hold in by force eastern Europe as well as the areas that wanted to break away from the old USSR itself.
Even if most/all of Central Asia decided to stay in such a union the Baltics and Caucasian states will want to leave, along with all the old WP members getting out from Soviet/Russian control and very likely Ukraine, which is the other most important state demographically and economically.
What I remember reading somewhere is that the Central Asian republics were very economically integrated with Russia and were willing to remain politically unified to keep those ties. I will need to read more on this.
Possibly. The Soviet economy was set up that way with a lot of things being interconnected, plus there was the influence of the Russia minorities in many of the states. However I suspect there would be significant separatist movements, either because of a desire for independence from control by Moscow or of powerful local figures seeking to be removed from the central party for their own interests. Also given recent events in Iran and Afghanistan if those states don't break away their likely to be targeted by Islamic extremist groups.
|
|
|
|
Post by Middlesex_Toffeeman on Apr 16, 2019 6:11:51 GMT
I'll answer myself. The hardliners' coup is successful and grabs the attention of a lot of the Russian East, whilst the more liberal cities in the West stay loyal to Yeltsin. War happens, you end up with a "Republic of Russia" in the west and a "Soviet Union" rump in the east.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Apr 16, 2019 16:01:16 GMT
The New Union Treaty was meant to be signed in 1991 but the August coup fallout cancelled that out.
A sketch scenario might be the coup not happening - cold feet - most of the republics staying with the Union, a flirtation with democracy but strong state elements remain, vote rigging to keep real democracy down, an emergency situation occurs and the state cracks down with the old order restored in all but name.
Such a situation above is almost what we see now with Russia btw, though not fully as it isn't a communist nation anymore.
|
|
