James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Aug 8, 2019 19:27:40 GMT
With the right set of circumstances, yes. It would be very hard to do but possible. |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 8, 2019 21:26:37 GMT
Alright, I guess that clarifies things. While I can't speak too much on the other geopolitical implications of a longer-lasting Soviet Russia, why would US leadership at this time trend in a more libertarian-leaning direction ITTL? Maybe Ronald Reagan & Company will work to further distance themselves from authoritarianism by promoting more social liberties alongside their revival of fiscal conservatism? If France goes red or at least socialist in May 68, Britain and America will likely swing the other way IMHO. Forgive me if this is an uninformed question, but what'd push France to adopting socialism in ~1968, exactly? Granted, I know they have a reputation as being more liberal in terms of economic legislation IOTL, but why even to the left than that? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,838
Likes: 13,226
|
Post by stevep on Aug 8, 2019 22:15:28 GMT
If France goes red or at least socialist in May 68, Britain and America will likely swing the other way IMHO. Forgive me if this is an uninformed question, but what'd push France to adopting socialism in ~1968, exactly? Granted, I know they have a reputation as being more liberal in terms of economic legislation IOTL, but why even to the left than that?
Possibly MT is thinking the social unrest in that year becomes worst and possibly even into a full revolution or coup - although I suspect that's unlikely.
If it did happen you have a France that is not only not militarily in NATO but is a potential opponent in the event of a war with the Soviets. Even the loss of France politically would send major shocks through the western powers and expose their defence on the continent of Europe, along with the possible fears that other nations might follow or at least see greater security in neutrality. Plus, at least until France exerted its independence from Moscow, which I think would be pretty certain to happen, it would be a big propaganda coup for the Soviets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Middlesex_Toffeeman on Aug 9, 2019 19:28:20 GMT
Forgive me if this is an uninformed question, but what'd push France to adopting socialism in ~1968, exactly? Granted, I know they have a reputation as being more liberal in terms of economic legislation IOTL, but why even to the left than that?
Possibly MT is thinking the social unrest in that year becomes worst and possibly even into a full revolution or coup - although I suspect that's unlikely.
If it did happen you have a France that is not only not militarily in NATO but is a potential opponent in the event of a war with the Soviets. Even the loss of France politically would send major shocks through the western powers and expose their defence on the continent of Europe, along with the possible fears that other nations might follow or at least see greater security in neutrality. Plus, at least until France exerted its independence from Moscow, which I think would be pretty certain to happen, it would be a big propaganda coup for the Soviets.
That I am. '68 has Soviet support and France falls. The French (being a Western state) don't push the boat out and thus come up with a reformist (by Soviet standards) form of Communism. The Soviet leader sees this and reforms, but fails to notice that his people want more reform than that. Soviet Russia falls by '71, ogliarchs invest as per OTL, the Russians feel discontented and elect a right-wing populist. |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 14, 2019 23:04:32 GMT
Possibly MT is thinking the social unrest in that year becomes worst and possibly even into a full revolution or coup - although I suspect that's unlikely.
If it did happen you have a France that is not only not militarily in NATO but is a potential opponent in the event of a war with the Soviets. Even the loss of France politically would send major shocks through the western powers and expose their defence on the continent of Europe, along with the possible fears that other nations might follow or at least see greater security in neutrality. Plus, at least until France exerted its independence from Moscow, which I think would be pretty certain to happen, it would be a big propaganda coup for the Soviets.
That I am. '68 has Soviet support and France falls. The French (being a Western state) don't push the boat out and thus come up with a reformist (by Soviet standards) form of Communism. The Soviet leader sees this and reforms, but fails to notice that his people want more reform than that. Soviet Russia falls by '71, ogliarchs invest as per OTL, the Russians feel discontented and elect a right-wing populist. Question: wouldn't France adopting socialism--even if it's not an authoritarian, mass-murdering brand like the rest of the Red bloc--set off the alarm bells and harden the US & Co.'s resolve to stop communism even more than IOTL? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,838
Likes: 13,226
|
Post by stevep on Aug 15, 2019 15:35:07 GMT
That I am. '68 has Soviet support and France falls. The French (being a Western state) don't push the boat out and thus come up with a reformist (by Soviet standards) form of Communism. The Soviet leader sees this and reforms, but fails to notice that his people want more reform than that. Soviet Russia falls by '71, ogliarchs invest as per OTL, the Russians feel discontented and elect a right-wing populist. Question: wouldn't France adopting socialism--even if it's not an authoritarian, mass-murdering brand like the rest of the Red bloc--set off the alarm bells and harden the US & Co.'s resolve to stop communism even more than IOTL?
Not so much socialism as actual communism. Until Mitterrand became President in 1981 the Socialists in France were a somewhat small power in France to the Communist party which had more votes and generally provided the leadership of the left in France.
A communist victory, especially coming about from the 69 unrest leading to some sort of revolution would definitely set alarm bells ringing across the west. Possibly I fear a general clamp-down on youth culture of the time and many of the ideas associated with it, which could of course backfire.
Unless their willing to send NATO forces into France - which would be a hell of a risk and probably politically very divisive - I'm not sure what the western powers could do. They could seek to isolate France politically and possibly even economically but the Soviets are likely to support the new regime and also block any move in the UN even if the UNO refused to accept the new government of France as a legitimate successor - which is important given its a permanent member of the security council.
At the time there was a lot of unrest among the younger elements of populations across much of Europe - and the US - and also significant communist parties in a number of other western countries, most noticeably Italy and there would probably be fear that Italy could also see a communist government by either revolution or democratic means. That would really isolate the continental European members of NATO further and possibly tempt one or two to consider neutrality as the safest measure, especially if some elements were talking about military intervention in the new France.
Its also going to be a big issue for the EEC, although how that will respond I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by fieldmarshal on Aug 26, 2019 16:38:30 GMT
Tangentially related to the current discussion about Mai '68, a scenario in the big OCCINT TL I kick around (Cold War lasts to modern day, stalemated WW3 in 2020s involving regional nuclear exchanges, Lovecraftian horror in background as world slowly falls apart) involves De Gaulle being assassinated in the midst of the chaos (I can't decide if i want his assassin to be a communist student who gets lucky or a revenge-motivated survivor of the 1962 Oran massacre), resulting in a military crackdown on the protesters and the installation of a right-wing authoritarian military government that eventually steps down in the early 1990s.
As for the topic of the thread, I am of the belief that the USSR could have easily survived to the modern day had they gone down a different path. Depending on the circumstances they might even make it out whole and intact, and possibly (although less likely) even with a few of their Eastern European puppet states intact as well. I even think that they could have survived as late as 1991, as a majority across the USSR (barring the Baltic States, Armenia, and Georgia) voted to retain the union in some form; I think that ultimately the failure of August Coup was what ultimately torpedoed the Union once and for all; and even then I think that had the Coup been more effectively managed it could have resulted in the survival of the Soviet system under hardline leadership.
As for the Cold War, it would be impossible to maintain 1980s levels of military size and readiness, so there would undoubtedly be valleys of detente and disarmament inbetween periods of hightened tensions and rearmament
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Aug 26, 2019 22:58:52 GMT
Tangentially related to the current discussion about Mai '68, a scenario in the big OCCINT TL I kick around (Cold War lasts to modern day, stalemated WW3 in 2020s involving regional nuclear exchanges, Lovecraftian horror in background as world slowly falls apart) involves De Gaulle being assassinated in the midst of the chaos (I can't decide if i want his assassin to be a communist student who gets lucky or a revenge-motivated survivor of the 1962 Oran massacre), resulting in a military crackdown on the protesters and the installation of a right-wing authoritarian military government that eventually steps down in the early 1990s. As for the topic of the thread, I am of the belief that the USSR could have easily survived to the modern day had they gone down a different path. Depending on the circumstances they might even make it out whole and intact, and possibly (although less likely) even with a few of their Eastern European puppet states intact as well. I even think that they could have survived as late as 1991, as a majority across the USSR (barring the Baltic States, Armenia, and Georgia) voted to retain the union in some form; I think that ultimately the failure of August Coup was what ultimately torpedoed the Union once and for all; and even then I think that had the Coup been more effectively managed it could have resulted in the survival of the Soviet system under hardline leadership. As for the Cold War, it would be impossible to maintain 1980s levels of military size and readiness, so there would undoubtedly be valleys of detente and disarmament inbetween periods of hightened tensions and rearmament I've read many different accounts of the August 91 coup. They vary on details but from what I can gather, those involved had no stomach for a fight. Gorbachev faced them down, refusing to sign a resignation, and they had no idea what to do next with that. Any 'good' coupists would have shot him. When the protesters showed up to protect the Russian White House, they called in several army & airborne troops generals to have a look at what opposition an assault would face. The plotters were told it would cause civilian casualties. Again, unlike any good coupists - I mean this in the way of those who succeed; not with good intentions - they backed down at the thought of that and started drinking. They didn't have a fight in them. They would need to if they intended to keep what they had. I compare this to Yeltsin in 93 who sent the tanks in while accepting it would cause casualties. Different situation, yes, but he did what those in 91 wouldn't and take lives. Bare in mind they didn't kill any of those whom they detained - three people died over all outside the White House, by accident too - nor showed any inclination to do so. Those men who tried in 91 to take over could never keep the country together when it was in the state it was at that time with violence already underway. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Aug 29, 2019 6:24:59 GMT
Really random, but a continued Iowa-class on the USN rosters, preferably with the extended range ammo and possibly even the conversion into Amphibious Assault ships, along with the 140mm Abrams and the Super Tomcat would be beautiful to me.
|
|
dayton3
Chief petty officer
Posts: 118
Likes: 26
|
Post by dayton3 on Oct 9, 2019 0:13:50 GMT
If Romanov had managed to come to power instead of Gorbachev in the mid 1980s instead of Gorbachev it is possible he would've had the ruthlessness necessary to hold the Soviet Union and its East European empire together. Gorbachev unlike previous Soviet leaders had almost no stomach for using violence to maintain Soviet power. He fooled himself into believing that if the people in Eastern Europe actually had a choice that they would prefer the Soviet Union.
Boy was he surprised.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,838
Likes: 13,226
|
Post by stevep on Oct 9, 2019 15:28:52 GMT
If Romanov had managed to come to power instead of Gorbachev in the mid 1980s instead of Gorbachev it is possible he would've had the ruthlessness necessary to hold the Soviet Union and its East European empire together. Gorbachev unlike previous Soviet leaders had almost no stomach for using violence to maintain Soviet power. He fooled himself into believing that if the people in Eastern Europe actually had a choice that they would prefer the Soviet Union. Boy was he surprised.
In which case, i.e. a Romanov leadership you think it would end in a bang but the question might be how big a bang? With the growing failure of soviet communism to meet the needs of the people and China starting to see dramatic economic growth as well as the western powers continuing to pull ahead in economic terms and growing nationalism inside the empire its going to need a hell of a lot of repression to try and hold things together. The Red Army is already struggling in Afghanistan and while it can get a lot more ruthless there things are likely to explode in places like Poland and Hungary as well. How much longer can a faltering Soviet system maintain the minimum level of public support to enable it to maintain such efforts? Possibly if they move to Nazis or Lenin/Stalin levels of repression but that's going to cause a hell of a lot of destruction as well as the reaction in the west.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,999
Likes: 49,403
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 9, 2019 15:33:10 GMT
If Romanov had managed to come to power instead of Gorbachev in the mid 1980s instead of Gorbachev it is possible he would've had the ruthlessness necessary to hold the Soviet Union and its East European empire together. Gorbachev unlike previous Soviet leaders had almost no stomach for using violence to maintain Soviet power. He fooled himself into believing that if the people in Eastern Europe actually had a choice that they would prefer the Soviet Union. Boy was he surprised. In which case, i.e. a Romanov leadership you think it would end in a bang but the question might be how big a bang? With the growing failure of soviet communism to meet the needs of the people and China starting to see dramatic economic growth as well as the western powers continuing to pull ahead in economic terms and growing nationalism inside the empire its going to need a hell of a lot of repression to try and hold things together. The Red Army is already struggling in Afghanistan and while it can get a lot more ruthless there things are likely to explode in places like Poland and Hungary as well. How much longer can a faltering Soviet system maintain the minimum level of public support to enable it to maintain such efforts? Possibly if they move to Nazis or Lenin/Stalin levels of repression but that's going to cause a hell of a lot of destruction as well as the reaction in the west.
Are we speaking about somebody called Grigory Romanov ore Alexander Romanov from Red Alert 2. |
|
dayton3
Chief petty officer
Posts: 118
Likes: 26
|
Post by dayton3 on Oct 11, 2019 14:26:33 GMT
In which case, i.e. a Romanov leadership you think it would end in a bang but the question might be how big a bang? With the growing failure of soviet communism to meet the needs of the people and China starting to see dramatic economic growth as well as the western powers continuing to pull ahead in economic terms and growing nationalism inside the empire its going to need a hell of a lot of repression to try and hold things together. The Red Army is already struggling in Afghanistan and while it can get a lot more ruthless there things are likely to explode in places like Poland and Hungary as well. How much longer can a faltering Soviet system maintain the minimum level of public support to enable it to maintain such efforts? Possibly if they move to Nazis or Lenin/Stalin levels of repression but that's going to cause a hell of a lot of destruction as well as the reaction in the west.
Are we speaking about somebody called Grigory Romanov ore Alexander Romanov from Red Alert 2. Grigory Romanov. Member of the Politburo and reportedly Gorbachev's greatest competition. |
|
