Twilight of the Red Tsar

[Bookmark1995]

I just thought of a very good reason why I feel Russia's future leaders would be dissuaded from authoritarianism: not out of the goodness of their hearts, but the multi-generational hatred they will receive from the US.

Here's what I mean. ITTL, American schoolchildren, the baby boomers, have received a thorough Holocaust education, including meeting with survivors of the Shoah, tattoos and all. They've been brought up to hate Russia, rather than just fear it like OTL, or be jealous of their space travel. Their counterculture, rather than a celebration of collective unity, is the exact opposite: a cutthroat economic ideology that celebrates individual accomplishment. This generation has grown up thinking Russians as the worst people ever. Like their parents, they will enter politics with a profound distrust of Russia as a nation.

Generations that come after the baby boomers not only will receive Nazi Holocaust education, but they also hear the stories told by the roughly 100,000 Soviet Jews who immigrated to America. A good number will still be alive by ITTL 2017. Jewish schools especially will be interested in meeting these people.

With Russia trashed by civil war and ethnic cleansing, it will need the help of the world's only superpower if it wants to rebuild. Those leaders will have to go through the motions if they want money, and they will do so for a long time.

I have relatives who still think Germans will start another Holocaust. One said, his words, "Those Jews moving to Berlin deserve to die", because he sees Germany still has this lion's den. Multiply that times 1000, and that will be the attitude American Jews, an important voting demographic both parties will seek to please, will have toward the Russians.

In historiography, most people will think the Soviet Pogrom was inevitable, considering the history of pogroms inside Tsarist Russia, with this pogrom only occurring on an industrial scale. It will only add to the notion that Russians are just predisposed to drinking Jewish blood.

The CNS may have done the right thing by letting the Jews leave, but they've only just begun to yank Russia out of its deep, deep hole. And the American people, told stories of the evil man with a handlebar mustache, will make them work to climb out of it for a long, long time if they wish to receive loans and aid.

Asian Americans too will also feel a profound hatred for Russia. As their numbers grow, so will their influence in US politics.

There might also be another positive to such an attitude: having learned about Stalin's pogrom and his other acts of ethnic cleansing, maybe future generations will be more interested in taking a stand against genocide.

 

[QueerSpear]

Snip

Exactly- most posters are understimating how utterly ruined Russia is TTL.

 

[Bookmark1995]

Exactly- most posters are understimating how utterly ruined Russia is TTL.

Ruined not just physically, but morally in the eyes of the world.

 

[Augenis]

I just thought of a very good reason why I feel Russia's future leaders would be dissuaded from authoritarianism: not out of the goodness of their hearts, but the multi-generational hatred they will receive from the US.

Here's what I mean. ITTL, American schoolchildren, the baby boomers, have received a thorough Holocaust education, including meeting with survivors of the Shoah, tattoos and all. They've been brought up to hate Russia, rather than just fear it like OTL, or be jealous of their space travel. Their counterculture, rather than a celebration of collective unity, is the exact opposite: a cutthroat economic ideology that celebrates individual accomplishment. This generation has grown up thinking Russians as the worst people ever. Like their parents, they will enter politics with a profound distrust of Russia as a nation.

Generations that come after the baby boomers not only will receive Nazi Holocaust education, but they also hear the stories told by the roughly 100,000 Soviet Jews who immigrated to America. A good number will still be alive by ITTL 2017. Jewish schools especially will be interested in meeting these people.

With Russia trashed by civil war and ethnic cleansing, it will need the help of the world's only superpower if it wants to rebuild. Those leaders will have to go through the motions if they want money, and they will do so for a long time.

I have relatives who still think Germans will start another Holocaust. One said, his words, "Those Jews moving to Berlin deserve to die", because he sees Germany still has this lion's den. Multiply that times 1000, and that will be the attitude American Jews, an important voting demographic both parties will seek to please, will have toward the Russians.

In historiography, most people will think the Soviet Pogrom was inevitable, considering the history of pogroms inside Tsarist Russia, with this pogrom only occurring on an industrial scale. It will only add to the notion that Russians are just predisposed to drinking Jewish blood.

The CNS may have done the right thing by letting the Jews leave, but they've only just begun to yank Russia out of its deep, deep hole. And the American people, told stories of the evil man with a handlebar mustache, will make them work to climb out of it for a long, long time if they wish to receive loans and aid.

Asian Americans too will also feel a profound hatred for Russia. As their numbers grow, so will their influence in US politics.

There might also be another positive to such an attitude: having learned about Stalin's pogrom and his other acts of ethnic cleansing, maybe future generations will be more interested in taking a stand against genocide.

I don't think that's a good argument. You basically explained why foreigners would hate Russia and Russian authoritarianism. Big deal, they hate Russia IOTL already and the Russians don't seem to have a problem.

As for how the Russians themselves will feel - well, unless the CNS goes through a process of de-Sovietization much like Germany went through de-Nazification after WW2, I don't and won't buy the argument that Russians will be automatically dissuaded from any type of democracy and will instantly become as liberal as the West. Let's be honest here - all the atrocities in TTL are just repeats of (often worse) OTL disasters that did NOT persuade Russians to give up Soviet nostalgia. For every Second Great Purge, you have the First Great Purge, for every Great Pogrom and Soviet Holocaust, you have the Holodomor and the mass deportations of Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans and others.

I said it already and I will say it again - the impoverished, distressed low-class worker 50 years after the August Revolution, angry with the inevitable corruption and infighting of the democratic Russia, will not give a single shit about the atrocities that the Soviets committed, because they did not personally affect him. He will, however, care about the superpower status that the USSR held, care that everyone had a job in the USSR, because those things play into his patriotic feelings, which Russians will have plenty of no matter what you do.

 

[Bookmark1995]

-snip-

I never said Russians will be automatically dissuaded. I said, because of the civil war that will leave their nation in ruin, they'll need aid.

I said, that if Russians want aid, they have to play ball with the US. They'll reform themselves because otherwise they're on their own when it comes to receiving help from the outside world.

Part of that "playing ball" would be a de-Sovietization program.

The attitude of foreigners will matter, because those foreigners will be needed to rebuild Russia.

 

[Lost Freeway]

I don't and won't buy the argument that Russians will be automatically dissuaded from any type of democracy and will instantly become as liberal as the West.

 

[Augenis]

I never said Russians will be automatically dissuaded. I said, because of the civil war that will leave their nation in ruin, they'll need aid.

I said, that if Russians want aid, they have to play ball with the US. They'll reform themselves because otherwise they're on their own when it comes to receiving help from the outside world.

Part of that "playing ball" would be a de-Sovietization program.

The attitude of foreigners will matter, because those foreigners will be needed to rebuild Russia.

Boris Yeltsin was a very pro-American president, and he even was the leader of the Russian nationalist movement that toppled the USSR. Doesn't mean that his people liked him very much.

I'm sure that the government will be pro-Western for all eternity, not just out of wishes of placate the US, but probably also out of fears that a not so pro-West leadership would result in a CIA coup, but in this case the government doesn't have much influence in what the people think.

 

[Bookmark1995]

Boris Yeltsin was a very pro-American president, and he even was the leader of the Russian nationalist movement that toppled the USSR. Doesn't mean that his people liked him very much.

I'm sure that the government will be pro-Western for all eternity, not just out of wishes of placate the US, but probably also out of fears that a not so pro-West leadership would result in a CIA coup, but in this case the government doesn't have much influence in what the people think.

It remains to be seen if a Yeltsin-type will come to power. I think the future could be mix of liberal democracy and angry plutocrat.

 

[MagicalPhantom345]

I'm sure that the government will be pro-Western for all eternity, not just out of wishes of placate the US, but probably also out of fears that a not so pro-West leadership would result in a CIA coup, but in this case the government doesn't have much influence in what the people think.

I can agree with you that every nation that was affected by Soviet Russia in some form will eventually reconcile through the CNS regime, though it will vary depending how much of a negative impact the Soviet Union had on each country. In the meantime they would most likely devote their intelligence service to monitoring what they are up to,
just to make sure they won't try anything.

 

[Goldarmy]

As for how the Russians themselves will feel - well, unless the CNS goes through a process of de-Sovietization much like Germany went through de-Nazification after WW2,

Why do you think there won't be a process of De-sovietization?

 

[QueerSpear]

With Napoleon IV's permission, I am publishing this about the butterfly effects on economics.

The Fall of the Welfare State

Excerpts from Economic History of America since World War Two by Milton Friedman​

By the end of 1960s the so called New Deal consensus was already fraying at the edges due to a variety of issues. Some claim purely economic reasons- free market advocates affirm that the welfare state was a pipe dream and an unworkable band aid that would never survive long term while Keynesian economists point out to the end of the manufacturing monopoly held by the US since the end of WW2 with the rise of the West (until the Re-Unification, which triggered a short-term recession) German and Japanese economies as well the sudden opening of new markets in the newly liberated Eastern European and East Asian nations after the fall of communism.

Others claim that a cultural shift rightwards as a reason. The discrediting of communism and other collectivist ideologies lead to rise of religious fervor and a committement to individualism and personal responsability. While Objectivism would never become dominant, it certainly played a role in the restoration of free enterprise in America.[1]

The election of William Knowland, a moderate conservative, was a dark oman for the fraying welfare state. While known for his foreign policy and civil rights policies, one should not discount the role of the de-regulation policies and lower taxation had on the economic liberalization throught out the rest of the decade.
​

Excerpt from The Encyclopedia of US Elections
​

Election of 1968: The election of 1968 was the 46th presidential election. Incumbent William Knowland would win the nomination, not only for facing weak opposition but also due to the strenght of his domestic and foreign policies. The Democratic Party would have an open field which would result in the rise of New Deal champion Hubert Humphrey. Running on a campaign of fiscal responsability and commitement to a CNS victory in the Soviet Civil War, Knowland would wage a vicious campaign in which he heavily implied that Humphrey to be a communist fellow traveller. The result would be a landslide victory of 421 votes to 117 for Knowland.

Election of 1972: The 47th presidential election, often considered one of the presidential elections to mark the beginning of the Sixth Party System. With growing geopolitical stability and the end of the political chaos of the sixties, this election was marked purely by economic policies. Hampered by a economic recession that ended with a "jobless recovery" and growing competition from foreign companies, the incumbent party also suffered from voter fatigue after twenty years of Republican government. The GOP nomination would be for Rockefeller Republican (a moribund faction within the party) John Lindsay while the Democratic Party would surprinsly nominate the moderate neo-conservative John McKeithen. The election would end with a majority win for McKeithen.

Election of 1976: The 48th presidential election of US history, it's one of the candidates to mark the beginning of the Sixth Party System. From the Democratic side, the incumbent John McKeithen would win the nomination after three ballots while in the Republican Party the neo-conservative radical Roger McBride would win by a comfortable margin in the first ballot. Hurt by the controversial privatization of welfare programs and a sluggish economic growth, McKeithen would lose to McBride by a narrow Electoral College vote even though McKeithen would win on the popular vote.

Congressional election of 1972: The election of the Ninety-Third Congress of the United States. Unlike the presidential election, the Congressional election would be decidedly in favor of Republicans whom would increase their majority in the House by six seats while the Democrats would maintain their majority in the Senate, though it would loose one seat.
​

Excerpts from On Social InSecurity by William Buckley​

The Social Security program, built on government enforcement and totalitarian control of insurance policy, is unworkable in the long term. Without the constant influx of financing, which would meant excessively high taxation upon those that would probably seek to use it most, the Social Security program will run a deficit hole in the government budget.

Pressures such as rising inflation, growing costs of goods and services and healthcare would ensure that, by retirement age, Social Security's benefit payments would be insuficient for a comfortable life for senior citizens. Any attempt to increase these benefits will result in the creation of a massive government debt that would cripple American sovereignity beyond repair binding the US government to serve foreign interests.
​

Excerpt from The Death of the New Deal by William Clinton​

Nothing represents how popular opinion had changed more than the privatization of the the Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program, mostly known as Social Security, in 1974. Created by Franklin Roosevelt's Second New Deal in 1935, the thirty-seven page Social Security Act was a hallmark legislative policy of the New Deal and would survive until the hard right swing in the 1970s.

Under a moderate Democratic presidency with a decidely neo-conservative[2] Congress meant that there was a considerate change in economic policy. While continuing the trend of market liberalization and, unlike Knowland, actually reducing taxation, the McKeithen administration is mostly infamous for the even back then extremely controversial Personal Responsability and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1974.

To understand the reasons why the Democratic Party would take such a dramatic change in policy one must take into account the growing grassroots neo-conservative movement which had been brewing for decades. Never satisfied with the New Deal policies in the first place, conservatives would work tiressly to discredit and oppose any further expansion of the welfare state.

Inspired by works such as William Buckley's On Social InSecurity polemic, although the man himself would fall from grace in the 1960s due to his support for segregation and white supremacy in the previous decade, and others such as Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative, neo-conservatives would be propelled from a political pariah to take over the Republican Party.

With growing distrust towards "big government" policies as a backlash to communist atrocities, there was also the need for John McKeithen to have a hallmark legislation to mark his administration. Thus the PRWORA was inevitable, even if McKeithen opposed the Act, the future McBridge administration would have no doubt passed it.
​

Excerpts from the article The Dystopian Healthcare Crisis In America for the syndicalist Liberation! newspaper by Bodgan Denitch[3]​

It's one of the truism of American capitalism that health is not a right, but a privilege of which only some people are allowed to enjoy.

Annually, approximately 152,000 people die from lack of adequate healthcare[4] according to a study published today by the American Journal of Public Health in the richest country in the world. Dominated by a consensus built on economic darwinism, selfishness and a utter contempt for the underprivileged, American capitalism ruthlessly dismantled the crumbs provided by New Deal welfare and doomed thousands to a life of misery and death by easily treatable diseases.

Even though we have the technology to cure most diseases and the industry to mass produce the necessary medicine for the entire population, the bourgeoisie's need to profit will always come first over human interests.

[1] the truth lies somewhere in the middle, with a mixture of rapid growth of the world market, increasing competition and a cultural backlash against leftism turning popular opinion against the New Deal a decade earlier
[2] Neo-conservatives refer TTL to libertarians rather than a hawkish foreign policy, with a socially moderate (or opportunist) stance with a rabid support for an unregulated free market and no safety net
[3] Denitch was OTL a democratic socialist and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. TTL, with a more or less successful libertarian socialist ideology (syndicalism) surviving intact to the present day, people who otherwise would be attracted to social democracy would orbit towards syndicalism instead
[4] OTL, according to this article from 2009 (before Obamacare), some 45,000 people died from lack of health insurance. TTL programs like Medicare and Medicaid would not exist, as such the death rate would be even higher. I am probably being conservative about the numbers, actually.​

 

[Bookmark1995]

With Napoleon IV's permission, I am publishing this about the butterfly effects on economics.

The Fall of the Welfare State

Excerpts from Economic History of America since World War Two by Milton Friedman​

By the end of 1960s the so called New Deal consensus was already fraying at the edges due to a variety of issues. Some claim purely economic reasons- free market advocates affirm that the welfare state was a pipe dream and an unworkable band aid that would never survive long term while Keynesian economists point out to the end of the manufacturing monopoly held by the US since the end of WW2 with the rise of the West (until the Re-Unification, which triggered a short-term recession) German and Japanese economies as well the sudden opening of new markets in the newly liberated Eastern European and East Asian nations after the fall of communism.

Others claim that a cultural shift rightwards as a reason. The discrediting of communism and other collectivist ideologies lead to rise of religious fervor and a committement to individualism and personal responsability. While Objectivism would never become dominant, it certainly played a role in the restoration of free enterprise in America.[1]

The election of William Knowland, a moderate conservative, was a dark oman for the fraying welfare state. While known for his foreign policy and civil rights policies, one should not discount the role of the de-regulation policies and lower taxation had on the economic liberalization throught out the rest of the decade.​

Knowland is a closet Randian.

​

Excerpt from The Encyclopedia of US Elections
​

Election of 1968: The election of 1968 was the 46th presidential election. Incumbent William Knowland would win the nomination, not only for facing weak opposition but also due to the strenght of his domestic and foreign policies. The Democratic Party would have an open field which would result in the rise of New Deal champion Hubert Humphrey. Running on a campaign of fiscal responsability and commitement to a CNS victory in the Soviet Civil War, Knowland would wage a vicious campaign in which he heavily implied that Humphrey to be a communist fellow traveller. The result would be a landslide victory of 421 votes to 117 for Knowland.

Election of 1972: The 47th presidential election, often considered one of the presidential elections to mark the beginning of the Sixth Party System. With growing geopolitical stability and the end of the political chaos of the sixties, this election was marked purely by economic policies. Hampered by a economic recession that ended with a "jobless recovery" and growing competition from foreign companies, the incumbent party also suffered from voter fatigue after twenty years of Republican government. The GOP nomination would be for Rockefeller Republican (a moribund faction within the party) John Lindsay while the Democratic Party would surprinsly nominate the moderate neo-conservative John McKeithen. The election would end with a majority win for McKeithen.

Election of 1976: The 48th presidential election of US history, it's one of the candidates to mark the beginning of the Sixth Party System. From the Democratic side, the incumbent John McKeithen would win the nomination after three ballots while in the Republican Party the neo-conservative radical Roger McBride would win by a comfortable margin in the first ballot. Hurt by the controversial privatization of welfare programs and a sluggish economic growth, McKeithen would lose to McBride by a narrow Electoral College vote even though McKeithen would win on the popular vote.

Congressional election of 1972: The election of the Ninety-Third Congress of the United States. Unlike the presidential election, the Congressional election would be decidedly in favor of Republicans whom would increase their majority in the House by six seats while the Democrats would maintain their majority in the Senate, though it would loose one seat.​

President Roger MacBride? How does he go from writing Little House on the Prairie, to becoming head of state.
​

Excerpts from On Social InSecurity by Milton Friedman

The Social Security program, built on government enforcement and totalitarian control of insurance policy, is unworkable in the long term. Without the constant influx of financing, which would meant excessively high taxation upon those that would probably seek to use it most, the Social Security program will run a deficit hole in the government budget.

Pressures such as rising inflation, growing costs of goods and services and healthcare would ensure that, by retirement age, Social Security's benefit payments would be insuficient for a comfortable life for senior citizens. Any attempt to increase these benefits will result in the creation of a massive government debt that would cripple American sovereignity beyond repair biding the US government to serve foreign interests.​

Has Milton Friedman made similar OTL remarks on Social Security?

Excerpt from

The Death of the New Deal​

by William Clinton​

Nothing represents how popular opinion had changed more than the privatization of the the Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program, mostly known as Social Security, in 1974. Created by Franklin Roosevelt's Second New Deal in 1935, the thirty-seven page Social Security Act was a hallmark legislative policy of the New Deal and would survive until the hard right swing in the 1970s.

Under a moderate Democratic presidency with a decidely neo-conservative[2] Congress meant that there was a considerate change in economic policy. While continuing the trend of market liberalization and, unlike Knowland, actually reducing taxation, the McKeithen administration is mostly infamous for the even back then extremely controversial Personal Responsability and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1974.

To understand the reasons why the Democratic Party would take such a dramatic change in policy one must take into account the growing grassroots neo-conservative movement which had been brewing for decades. Never satisfied with the New Deal policies in the first place, conservatives would work tiressly to discredit and oppose any further expansion of the welfare state.

Inspired by works such as Friedman's On Social InSecurity polemic, although the man himself would fall from grace in the 1960s due to his support for segregation and white supremacy in the previous decade, and others such as Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative, neo-conservatives would be propelled from a political pariah to take over the Republican Party.

With growing distrust towards "big government" policies as a backlash to communist attrocaties, there was also the need for John McKeithen to have a hallmark legislation to mark his administration. Thus the PRWORA was inevitable, even if McKeithen opposed the Act, the future McBridge administration would have no doubt passed it.

I'm confused. Are you saying Milton Friedman was a racist ITTL?

McKeithen, whether in one TL or another, can help but cause trouble whenever he is elected.


​

Excerpts from the article The Dystopian Healthcare Crisis In America for the syndicalist Liberation! newspaper by Bodgan Denitch[3]

It's one of the truism of American capitalism that health is not a right, but a privilege of which only some people are allowed to enjoy.

Annually, approximately 76,000 people die from lack of adequate healthcare[4] according to a study published today by the American Journal of Public Health in the richest country in the world. Dominated by a consensus built on economic darwinism, selfishness and a utter contempt for the underprivileged, American capitalism ruthlessly dismantled the crumbs provided by New Deal welfare and doomed thousands to a life of misery and death by easily treatable diseases.

Even though we have the technology to cure most diseases and the industry to mass produce the necessary medicine for the entire population, the bourgeoisie's need to profit will always come first over human interests.

[1] the truth lies somewhere in the middle, with a mixture of rapid growth of the world market, increasing competition and a cultural backlash against leftism turning popular opinion against the New Deal a decade earlier
[2] Neo-conservatives refer TTL to libertarians rather than a hawkish foreign policy, with a socially moderate (or opportunist) stance with a rabid support for an unregulated free market and no safety net
[3] Denitch was OTL a democratic socialist and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. TTL, with a more or less successful libertarian socialist ideology (syndicalism) surviving intact to the present day, people who otherwise would be attracted to social democracy would orbit towards syndicalism instead
[4] OTL, according to this article from 2009 (before Obamacare), some 45,000 people died from lack of health insurance. TTL programs like Medicare and Medicaid would not exist, as such the death rate would be even higher. I am probably being conservative about the numbers, actually.​

No Medicare or Medicaid?! 79,000 dead?! Another thing you can blame the Soviets for. In many ways, Stalin was the worst enemy of the left.

In what period of time is this article written?

 

[Napoleon IV]

Red and White Terror​

Excerpt from The Soviet Civil War by Joshua Reddings​

The success of the August Revolution spurred the Soviet government to launch a massive crackdown. The initial order, signed by MGB chairman Mikhail Solomentsev, declared that anyone “deemed a threat to the Soviet state” should be immediately seized and executed. This included “social outcasts, former GULAG prisoners, and those with personal connections to the rebels.” In practice this meant that virtually anyone could be arrested. By this point the Soviet terror apparatus was a well-oiled machine, and the path from arrest to execution was quick. Once arrested prisoners would be tortured and forced to name names. After that they were taken before an MGB troika to be judged, and then executed. As time went on the process was simplified even further, with prisoners being arrested and then executed almost as soon as they arrived at the jails. To hide the omnipresent sound of gunfire many prisons began blasting music. For example, the residents of Stalingrad came to associate the operas of Tchaikovsky with the local prison.

In many of the SSRs and ASSRs ethnicity was used as a factor to determine loyalty. The most famous case of this was in Chechnya, where in the wake of the August Rebellion the LFI became even more aggressive. After a wave of violence in Grozny the Soviets decided that the best way to crush the uprising was to destroy the Chechen people. To that end between October 5th-10th the entire Chechen population of Grozny, amounting to about 100,000 people, was rounded up and loaded into trucks, allegedly to be deported to Central Asia. In truth they were taken to the North Ossetian town of Digora, where about 500 MGB Security Troops were waiting. After they arrived the Chechens were driven forward by rifle butts and whips into deep trenches. The Security Troops then sprayed the trenches with submachine gun fire. One of the executioners remembered that by the end the trenches “were a mass of putrefied flesh, with men, women, and children packed together so tightly that their bodies were indistinguishable.” Vladimir Volodarsky, who led the massacre, was awarded the Order of Lenin and put to work on similar missions throughout the North Caucasus.

For their part the rebels were little better than the Soviets. The obvious targets for the rebels was anyone associated with the Soviet regime, in particular MGB agents, informers, and high-level officials. Unlike the Soviets the rebels tried at first to hold public trials (such as the case of First Secretary of the Moscow Regional Committee Vasily Konotop), but the volume of cases quickly overwhelmed them and it was replaced by a system of summary execution, using martial law as a legal justification. Much like the Soviets the CNS also suffered from an espionage craze. They ended up executing around 50,000 people for the crime, often on very flimsly grounds. The craze reached the height of absurdity in July 1969, when Pyotr Masherov, the former First Secretary of Belarus who turned against the Soviets in the aftermath of the August Revolution, was arrested as a spy. Despite Masherov’s work exposing Soviet crimes he was held without trial (only being saved from death thanks to the intervention of figures like Alexandr Solzhenitsyn).

Excerpt from Genocide in the Soviet Union by Paul Jefferson​

The example of Siberia, where former Gulag inmates and forced settlers had revolted, weighed heavily on the minds of the Soviet leadership, particularly when it came to Central Asia. Although the region was considered on the most loyal in the Soviet Union there were about 1.8 million people who had been deported there during the 1940s and 50s. Almost half (about 900,000) were Germans who had been moved during the opening days of the Great Patriotic War. Other major groups included Chechens (230,000) and Balts (around 200,000). In the panic after the August Revolution the plenipotentiary troika decided that these people needed to be dealt with, leaving the specifics of the task to the MGB. After reviewing the situation, and given the labor shortages created by the war, MGB chair Mikhail Solomentsev decided to reintern the exiles and use them as slave labor. From September-December 1967 these almost 2 million people were deported to hastily built “Special Camps” (Spetslag) in Uzbekistan and southern Kazakhstan. Much like the old Gulag system there were a few main camps and dozens of sub-camps, where prisoners worked mining, making ammunition, growing food, and other types of work.

Conditions in the Spetslag resembled those of the Nazi concentration camps a generation earlier. Prisoners were required to work 14-hour days, with every last ounce of labor being squeezed out of them. To make things worse the Soviets failed to provide anywhere near enough food. Although after the war Solomentsev would maintain that this was due to a combination of the agricultural crisis and the material needs created by the war, many scholars argue that this action was deliberate. The most frequently cited document supporting this claim is a letter from Solomentsev to Spetslag-2 commandant Konstantin Rodov. Solomentsev wrote “Although we need the labor now, in the long term having a large prisoner population is undesirable. Remember what happened when Stalin died. Examine the situation in your camp and prune the population where you see fit.” Under these genocidal conditions around 1.2 million people died. Some ethnic communities were virtually destroyed. For example, of the 30,000 Abkhaz living in Central Asia only about 800 survived.

 

[Bookmark1995]

Red and White Terror​

Excerpt from The Soviet Civil War by Joshua Reddings​

The success of the August Revolution spurred the Soviet government to launch a massive crackdown. The initial order, signed by MGB chairman Mikhail Solomentsev, declared that anyone “deemed a threat to the Soviet state” should be immediately seized and executed. This included “social outcasts, former GULAG prisoners, and those with personal connections to the rebels.” In practice this meant that virtually anyone could be arrested. By this point the Soviet terror apparatus was a well-oiled machine, and the path from arrest to execution was quick. Once arrested prisoners would be tortured and forced to name names. After that they were taken before an MGB troika to be judged, and then executed. As time went on the process was simplified even further, with prisoners being arrested and then executed almost as soon as they arrived at the jails. To hide the omnipresent sound of gunfire many prisons began blasting music. For example, the residents of Stalingrad came to associate the operas of Tchaikovsky with the local prison.

I bet the contrast between mass repression and Tchaikovsky will be an excellent technique used in a movie about this horrific era.

In many of the SSRs and ASSRs ethnicity was used as a factor to determine loyalty. The most famous case of this was in Chechnya, where in the wake of the August Rebellion the LFI became even more aggressive. After a wave of violence in Grozny the Soviets decided that the best way to crush the uprising was to destroy the Chechen people. To that end between October 5th-10th the entire Chechen population of Grozny, amounting to about 100,000 people, was rounded up and loaded into trucks, allegedly to be deported to Central Asia. In truth they were taken to the North Ossetian town of Digora, where about 500 MGB Security Troops were waiting. After they arrived the Chechens were driven forward by rifle butts and whips into deep trenches. The Security Troops then sprayed the trenches with submachine gun fire. One of the executioners remembered that by the end the trenches “were a mass of putrefied flesh, with men, women, and children packed together so tightly that their bodies were indistinguishable.” Vladimir Volodarsky, who led the massacre, was awarded the Order of Lenin and put to work on similar missions throughout the North Caucasus.

Jesus Christ. The Nazi parallels don't end do they? After that, I can almost forgive the ITTL Republicans for gutting the welfare state, considering leftism as a whole is seen as fucking insane. I mean, these maniacs are perfectly happy to commit Babi Yar against the Chechens, without Stalin breathing down their neck. Unfortunately for them, "Stalin made me do it," can no longer be an acceptable excuse.

I'm surprised Lenin hasn't risen from the grave, and haunted the Stalingrad government for letting his name be associated with such a nightmare.

For their part the rebels were little better than the Soviets. The obvious targets for the rebels was anyone associated with the Soviet regime, in particular MGB agents, informers, and high-level officials. Unlike the Soviets the rebels tried at first to hold public trials (such as the case of First Secretary of the Moscow Regional Committee Vasily Konotop), but the volume of cases quickly overwhelmed them and it was replaced by a system of summary execution, using martial law as a legal justification. Much like the Soviets the CNS also suffered from an espionage craze. They ended up executing around 50,000 people for the crime, often on very flimsly grounds. The craze reached the height of absurdity in July 1969, when Pyotr Masherov, the former First Secretary of Belarus who turned against the Soviets in the aftermath of the August Revolution, was arrested as a spy. Despite Masherov’s work exposing Soviet crimes he was held without trial (only being saved from death thanks to the intervention of figures like Alexandr Solzhenitsyn).

The future of Russian democracy appears to be bleak, no matter what you do. I hope there isn't a Robespierre among the CNS, who will use this paranoia to do in his enemies.

Excerpt from Genocide in the Soviet Union by Paul Jefferson

The example of Siberia, where former Gulag inmates and forced settlers had revolted, weighed heavily on the minds of the Soviet leadership, particularly when it came to Central Asia. Although the region was considered on the most loyal in the Soviet Union there were about 1.8 million people who had been deported there during the 1940s and 50s. Almost half (about 900,000) were Germans who had been moved during the opening days of the Great Patriotic War. Other major groups included Chechens (230,000) and Balts (around 200,000). In the panic after the August Revolution the plenipotentiary troika decided that these people needed to be dealt with, leaving the specifics of the task to the MGB. After reviewing the situation, and given the labor shortages created by the war, MGB chair Mikhail Solomentsev decided to reintern the exiles and use them as slave labor. From September-December 1967 these almost 2 million people were deported to hastily built “Special Camps” (Spetslag) in Uzbekistan and southern Kazakhstan. Much like the old Gulag system there were a few main camps and dozens of sub-camps, where prisoners worked mining, making ammunition, growing food, and other types of work.

Conditions in the Spetslag resembled those of the Nazi concentration camps a generation earlier. Prisoners were required to work 14-hour days, with every last ounce of labor being squeezed out of them. To make things worse the Soviets failed to provide anywhere near enough food. Although after the war Solomentsev would maintain that this was due to a combination of the agricultural crisis and the material needs created by the war, many scholars argue that this action was deliberate. The most frequently cited document supporting this claim is a letter from Solomentsev to Spetslag-2 commandant Konstantin Rodov. Solomentsev wrote “Although we need the labor now, in the long term having a large prisoner population is undesirable. Remember what happened when Stalin died. Examine the situation in your camp and prune the population where you see fit.” Under these genocidal conditions around 1.2 million people died. Some ethnic communities were virtually destroyed. For example, of the 30,000 Abkhaz living in Central Asia only about 800 survived.

I'm not angry. It is heartbreaking that such monsters could be formed out of an ideology of equality.

 

[Midnight-Blue766]

... ... ...

 

[Praetor98]

I'm not angry. It is heartbreaking that such monsters could be formed out of an ideology of equality.

There's no such thing as equality in Communism, even in theory.

 

[Bookmark1995]

There's no such thing as equality in Communism, even in theory.

I don't want to get into any debates, but communism is supposed to promote equality. Again, that only makes the actions of the Soviets so much more heinous.

 

[Praetor98]

I don't want to get into any debates, but communism is supposed to promote equality. Again, that only makes the actions of the Soviets so much more heinous.

Viktor Suvorov would agree with you.

 

[Bookmark1995]

Viktor Suvorov would agree with you.

What does he have to do with my comment?

 

[Praetor98]

What does he have to do with my comment?

He was a man who wrote a book on the Soviet Army and it's high command. I own a copy, its very good. It talks about the lies that IOTL Communists told the wold and their own people, especially regarding the nature of the Soviet President and the General-Secretary.