Crisis in the Kremlin - Our 1982 USSR

If I were ever to make 2nd timeline, which one would you be most interested in?

  • 1. German Empire 1888

    Votes: 62 29.2%
  • 2. Russian Federation 1993

    Votes: 74 34.9%
  • 3. Red China 1949

    Votes: 37 17.5%
  • 4. Yugoslavia 1920

    Votes: 27 12.7%
  • 5. India 1947

    Votes: 28 13.2%
  • 6. alt-fascist Italy 1922

    Votes: 29 13.7%
  • 7. South Africa 1994

    Votes: 18 8.5%
  • 8. Germany 1990

    Votes: 20 9.4%
  • 9. Japan 2000

    Votes: 18 8.5%
  • 10. United Kingdom 1997

    Votes: 20 9.4%

  • Total voters
    212
  • Poll closed .
1. Vote on deal proposed by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
A) Yes, this will be beneficial to USSR
B) No, it will lead only to increased tensions with the West and China
A) Obviously we need to preserve the Subcontinent's Balance of Power, the Evil Axis of China, Pakistan and USA cannot be allowed to slide into a position of superiority. Over US or our allies.

Once they receive their weapons we can ask them to conduct some of the largest military exercises in history, further diverting the attention of the Pakistanis and the Chinese.
2. Redistribution of recovered/saved money and resources:
A) Soviet Space Program
B) Agriculture
C) Infrastructure
D) Healthcare
E) Education
F) Light industry and production of consumer goods
G) Other
B) Agriculture - We are addicted to US grain. Despite being such a large country with low population density we can't feed ourselves, we need to correct that at once.

We should have a composite trade agreement with India. We can sell them all the military hardware that they want, in return require them to supply us consumer goods. It will stop straining the reserves of a developing country while at the same time improve the quality of life of our people. They are the only country among the 10 largest economies apart from us ofc that is friendly to us, we need to strengthen this symbiotic relationship.
3. Soviet strategy for potential conflict with NATO and China:
a) Conventional offensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional defensive stance against China
b) Nuclear offensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional defensive stance against China
c) Nuclear offensive stance against NATO in Europe and nuclear defensive stance against China
d) Conventional defensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional offensive stance against China
e) Nuclear defensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional offensive stance against China
f) Nuclear defensive stance against NATO in Europe and nuclear offensive stance against China
g) Conventional offensive stance against NATO in Europe and nuclear defensive stance against China
G) The Europeans will not want nukes to be used on their soil and our conventional superiority should suffice. But we can never face the sheer numbers if China even if we completely reoriented our defence towards China, which is not possible given the threat to the west, even in such a case we are terribly outnumbered. We simply cannot take on China in any more than a major skirmish without the use of nuclear weapons. Mao once said that even if we kill 400 million Chinese, they would still win as they would have 400 million left, I say we should test this hypothesis.

In Afghanistan we should create militias of Pashtuns and Balochs, who want independence from Pakistan and support them with the same level of weapons as the Americans provide to the bandits calling themselves Mujahideen. We should make them strong enough that the fighting should shift to Pakistani soil and attacks should be carried out deep into Pakistan. Further attacks inside Pakistan should be using cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles, the Pakistani's should learn that if they play with fire, they would get their hands burnt.
 
1. Vote on deal proposed by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
A) Yes, this will be beneficial to USSR
2. Redistribution of recovered/saved money and resources:
B) Agriculture
F) Light industry and production of consumer goods

While i would love we could focuse on space program we need to focuse on more inportant problems in order to stabilise the Soviet Union and Warsava pact
3. Soviet strategy for potential conflict with NATO and China:
a) Conventional offensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional defensive stance against China

To be honest there is no good answer to this but i fell like that any useage of nuclear weapons against any power will have some other power to respond in kind we cant forget that USA and China might be working together,we should have nuclear weapons ready just in case but use it as last restort.Also reason i picked Nato over China is mostly due terrain and infrastructure and such we should have more easy time moving our army in Europe then in China
 
Last edited:
1. Vote on deal proposed by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
A) Yes, this will be beneficial to USSR
B) No, it will lead only to increased tensions with the West and China
A) India is a great market for our goods, plus our outdated equipment
2. Redistribution of recovered/saved money and resources:
A) Soviet Space Program
B) Agriculture
C) Infrastructure
D) Healthcare
E) Education
F) Light industry and production of consumer goods
G) Other
G) construction, the USSR had a huge housing problem. And F) the black market on consumer goods kills the state economy.
3. Soviet strategy for potential conflict with NATO and China:
a) Conventional offensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional defensive stance against China
b) Nuclear offensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional defensive stance against China
c) Nuclear offensive stance against NATO in Europe and nuclear defensive stance against China
d) Conventional defensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional offensive stance against China
e) Nuclear defensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional offensive stance against China
f) Nuclear defensive stance against NATO in Europe and nuclear offensive stance against China
g) Conventional offensive stance against NATO in Europe and nuclear defensive stance against China
H) Nuclear defensive stance, but war plans for offensive & defensive conventional war. Hit hard on MAD for diplomatic gain, reducing the number of warheads. Target old stuff first, as it sucks up money for nothing.

I also propose:

Military:
  1. Reorganise the army into a professional army of about 800,000. Switch from conscript focussed weaponry to professional army equipment. High tech is where its at.
  2. Selling off all the tanks except for T-80 & T-72. Use about half of T-72 for making Namer like IFVs. Build a high quality Merkava like vehicle as successor
  3. Our support weapons are inadequate and primitive. They'll need to be upgraded
  4. Our fighter arms suck at BVR fighting. We need a tech upgrade there as well. Bribe US pilots to deflect with F-15s
Economic:
  1. Drop all subsidies for Communist nations (north korea, vietnam, LATAM etc). Only export the outdated military equipment. Its a money pit we don't need. Only offer anything for key ownership like Iraq & Venezuela's oil, to own more of the OPEC. Instead reserve the money on loans to increase the economy of the best Warsaw pact members, alla the US Marshall plan.
  2. Keep reorganising to have 3 unions per industry, that compete. Reward the workers of the most successful, but don't allow win streaks of over 9 quarters. Redistribution of assigned factories etc solve that.
Political:
  1. Reorganise the Soviet states to be states, not former nations. National identity is still to large, we want the people to feel Soviet citizens, not Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians etc etc.
International diplomacy:
  1. The US is on a war course, be the voice of reason by removing limitations for the EEG/EU nations. Dethaw to them, maybe even allow the German Anschluss. Remove the Iron Curtain as much as possible there. Stimulate youth protests against nuclear weapons, reinforce them with your nuclear disarmament (destroying the world once with High Tech Weapons is enough, as per the point above it saves money for no tangible benefit)
 
Last edited:
1 - A
2 - Evenly distributed between all these options and maybe computers/electronics?
3- D and maybe rapprochement with China?
 
Military:
  1. Reorganise the army into a professional army of about 800,000. Switch from conscript focussed weaponry to professional army equipment. High tech is where its at.
  2. Selling off all the tanks except for T-80 & T-72. Use about half of T-72 for making Namer like IFVs. Build a high quality Merkava like vehicle as successor
  3. Our support weapons are inadequate and primitive. They'll need to be upgraded
  4. Our fighter arms suck at BVR fighting. We need a tech upgrade there as well. Bribe US pilots to deflect with F-15s
Most definitely a reform of armed forces is needed, but reduction to 800.000 is not politically feasible right now, taking into account combined manpower of NATO and China, as well as fact that Soviet troops located in Eastern Europe are probably the only thing why the communist governments are still in charge.

Economic:
  1. Drop all subsidies for Communist nations (north korea, vietnam, LATAM etc). Only export the outdated military equipment. Its a money pit we don't need. Only offer anything for key ownership like Iraq & Venezuela's oil, to own more of the OPEC. Instead reserve the money on loans to increase the economy of the best Warsaw pact members, alla the US Marshall plan.
  2. Keep reorganising to have 3 unions per industry, that compete. Reward the workers of the most successful, but don't allow win streaks of over 9 quarters. Redistribution of assigned factories etc solve that.
Personally I believe, that going with point 1 is not possible right now with someone like Romanov in charge, but who knows what will happen in the future.
International diplomacy:
  1. The US is on a war course, be the voice of reason by removing limitations for the EEG/EU nations. Dethaw to them, maybe even allow the German Anschluss. Remove the Iron Curtain as much as possible there. Stimulate youth protests against nuclear weapons, reinforce them with your nuclear disarmament (destroying the world once with High Tech Weapons is enough, as per the point above it saves money for no tangible benefit)
Good ideas, Romanov and Kunaev made the first step towards partial nuclear disarmament, capping number of Soviet warheads to 27.500. But it was done only for economic reasons,as right now their main priority is fixing Soviet economy and budget imbalance
 
I also propose:

Military:
  1. Reorganise the army into a professional army of about 800,000. Switch from conscript focussed weaponry to professional army equipment. High tech is where its at.
  2. Selling off all the tanks except for T-80 & T-72. Use about half of T-72 for making Namer like IFVs. Build a high quality Merkava like vehicle as successor
The next generation of Soviet MBT is already in development. Called Object 490.
 
1.
A - USSR and India have common enemies and interests and pretty much no conflict. Any anti-China and anti-Pakistan ally is very welcome. Also India is seen as one of the leaders of the Third World and Not-Aligned Countries. Good relations with New Delhi gain propaganda points for USSR among other countries,
2.
B - USSR can not be dependant on Western grain anymore; not to mention not having to buy that grain will allow to spare some very needed hard currency to use on something else.
C - This is an investment that will bring profit in time.
F - The people in USSR and socialist countries deserve better life; otherwise they might get some counter-revolutionary ideas....
G - More housing! See F.
3.
G - Conventional offensive stance against NATO in Europe and nuclear defensive stance against China, but with come caveats.
Conquest of China gives nothing but milions of hostile population; it would cost too much to feed them and keep them subdued. Conventional defense against China would require too many men and equipment on a very long front. Nuclear defensive stance is cheaper and might be as successful. It might be even worth considering nuclear offensive stance against China, if we could destroy most of Chinese nukes with first strike, although it will be costly from ecological POV (radioactive fallout doesn't give a damn about state borders) and diplomatic POV (international condemnation).
Conquest of Western Europe or at least West Germany and potentially Austria and Denmark can bring new technologies, money and better strategic position (open way from the Baltic Sea to the Atlantic Ocean e.g.). If we refrain from using WMDs it is possible that weak capitalist regimes refuse to use theirs to avoid their own destruction. Using nukes against NATO means destroying what we want to conquer, pollution which could reach WP countries and USSR. It also can easily cause massive retaliation from France, Britain and USA. We can not destroy THEIR nuclear arsenals with first strike (they have ballistic missile submarines, China does not).
 
3- D and maybe rapprochement with China?

Honestly i don't really think that China will really invade the USSR and is only playing American tune to modernize its economy/military.

But generally i believe that current leadership of the party is to smart to dedicate itself to total war against USSR for American interests.

Nuclear deterrent is really just our defensive doctrine in case they do invade us as we will need to dedicate all our forces west. Nuking NATO first isn't an option because certain European countries have Nukes as well and that would make any military operations harder . Also it makes option of diplomatic settlement with certain European regimes easier. Conventional offensive being necessary to prevent American built up of forces on our border and to at least prevent W. Germany from mobilizing its war effort bringing fight to France.

Honestly, we should focus on diplomatically weaken America's influence on mainland Europe and Ireland, minus Britain since a certain Iron Lady is in charge...

Honestly i see that as lost cause, or to much effort for to little gain as Europeans will never distance themselves from US to much.

Personally my diplomatic focus is opening up Eastern block countries more to trade and reforming the block so that populace there doesn't see the USSR as oppressors which means a less economic independence, but more political freedom (in line of communist ideology).

Next on the order is appealing to the neutral block and third world countries to weaken American influence there. This is in line with our already existing overtunes to India.

For Europe, really just appealing to the neutral countries and mutually beneficial deals with West European NATO countries. But no concessions that damage Soviet vital interest and position like letting East Germany be absorbed in Germany.

Regarding the economy, i would say we will need restructuring of the current system. Generally i think about allowing formation of small and potentially middle private businesses (they aren't a threat ti the communist party and can be justified to be in line with communist development) and granting more self-governance to the non vital interest state companies.

This is in order to make our economy more flexible, decrease burocracy and make it more efficient as problem with Soviet economy is that it became to big to realistically manage.
 
Last edited:
Honestly i see that as lost cause, or to much effort for to little gain as Europeans will never distance themselves from US to much.

Personally my diplomatic focus is opening up Eastern block countries more to trade and reforming the block so that populace there doesn't see the USSR as oppressors which means a less economic independence, but more political freedom (in line of communist ideology).

Next on the order is appealing to the neutral block and third world countries to weaken American influence there. This is in line with our already existing overtunes to India.

Regarding the economy, i would say we will need restructuring of the current system. Generally i think about allowing formation of small and potentially middle private businesses (they aren't a threat ti the communist party and can be justified to be in line with communist development) and granting more self-governance to the non vital interest state companies.

This is in order to make our economy more flexible, decrease burocracy and make it more efficient as problem with Soviet economy is that it became to big to realistically manage.
That's literally similar to Gorbachev's ideas (minus the neutral and third world nations plans) and look where that led to... mind you those are good ideas but the hardliners are still in power in both the government and the military so I think we should do them either as slowly as possible or when we have enough influence in what I mentioned.
 
Last edited:
1. A) We have common enemies with India and relatively little areas of conflict, the deal can only be beneficial to us and serve as a counterbalance to the USA and China's support of Pakistan, and may also help foster relations with the other nations of the Non-Aligned Movement.
2. B), F). G) - If we can alleviate our dependence on imports of US grain that will be a major benefit, and a focus on light industry and commercial good along with housing to improve living conditions for our citzenry.
3. G), A conventional offensive stance against NATO in Europe, as they'll be less likely to want an escalation to nuclear warfare on their soil and we do have the military forces to potentially overrun them, while China has vastly greater manpower and a smaller nuclear arsenal, potentially better deterred via a defensive nuclear stance.
 
I want to point out to some people who argue that NATO won't use nuclear weapons on their sole because of the fallout that would follow... There are clean nuclear weapons out there, negating their greatest downside. (The US built and used a tertiary bomb in both clean and dirty setting)

There's the possibility that Reagan might push for use of clean weapons (97% fusion) on West German soil given the higher tensions.

The Soviets for example wanted to utilize 250 clean nuclear bombs to create a mega canal until the late 80s.
 
1. Vote on deal proposed by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi


2. Redistribution of recovered/saved money and resources:


3. Soviet strategy for potential conflict with NATO and China:

1 A This comrades is likely to face serious retaliation but I feel is needed the question though is is what. Could be very heavy sanctions on India leaving them more dependent on us, attempts to woo Sri Lanka away from India into a more pro China/Western stances not hard to believe they would accept given how history is interpreted there and Indian's actions, China pressing forward in Indochina either through supporting the Khmer rouge with more men or against Vietnam directly or charm offensive into Burma to make India's most vulnerable border more insecure and drive away pressure for Pakistan.

However despite all the potential reactions no doing anything is a awful signal to our party, India and system. This is very much a opportunity to secure a lot of wealth and prosperity for the soviet civilians and tie them directly into our operation with their lives improving in because of it doing well or suffering if it fails should hopefully help curb elements in our glorious union that see it as a pointless action or the desperation of a dying power.

2 B and F Both important four our domestic and trade situations so I see them as the highest priority. Agriculture is something that could really bloom with the breadbaskets we have and light consumer goods would be very popular domestically.

3 C Feel China would not press their nuclear button first given the disparity between our stockpiles and their however that situation is a lot less bad for Nato.
 
The next generation of Soviet MBT is already in development. Called Object 490.
The Rabel with a conventional turret has potential. But the tech isn't there for a T-14 like setup. So it with a Merkava IV or Leo 2A6/7 turret.
Most definitely a reform of armed forces is needed, but reduction to 800.000 is not politically feasible right now, taking into account combined manpower of NATO and China, as well as fact that Soviet troops located in Eastern Europe are probably the only thing why the communist governments are still in charge.
I get that, though my counter argument is that 800.000 professionals and say a 800.000 National Guard model (so we have slightly more than the Americans (about 1.7 together)) works. And the latter is much cheaper.
Personally I believe, that going with point 1 is not possible right now with someone like Romanov in charge, but who knows what will happen in the future.
I'm not saying giving them nothing, but change it into goods over money. And charge them for it. It stimulates our economy, plus it does help them a little. Sell it as focus on growing the relative purchasing power of the socialist Warsaw Pact vs the capitalists in the US, but with a healthier balance across classes obviously since the USSR only has one (well, in theory). So Focus over Broadness, Quality over Quantity.

Can even grab back to the Socialism in 1 country retoric from Stalin himself. ;-)
Good ideas, Romanov and Kunaev made the first step towards partial nuclear disarmament, capping number of Soviet warheads to 27.500. But it was done only for economic reasons,as right now their main priority is fixing Soviet economy and budget imbalance
Exactly, budget is key. All these military reforms and high tech equipment cost money. So we want to spend the money on enough warheads to vaporise the US and China, which also is enough to wreck the world. probably 2000 is to much already, but 2750 has a nice appeal.
 
Last edited:
1.A. It is convenient for us to have good relations with India, even if the tension in the area increases, it would force China and Pakistan to mobilize resources that they will not spend on Afghanistan or on other issues. Besides, India can serve as a cover to acquire goods from the capitalist bloc.

2.B,C and F. We are too reliant on American grain, removing this reliance will ensure that they can't use it against us, while saving money.
A better infrastructure will allow greater integration while facilitating the movement of goods, population, troops...
A better light industry and consumer goods will increase the internal market, while it will be able to supply markets in the Soviet block and will allow it to compete with the American and European industry (China in otl)

3.D, most European nations don't want to know of a war on their soil, staying on the defensive in Europe will allow peace movements to gain strength, while rocking NATO, on the other hand, in China we can go on the offensive, the US will not intervene to defend it, and it has too many hostile neighbors that can help us in the attack, even if they are not our allies (the Kuomintang returns to mainland China boys)
 
But the tech isn't there for a T-14 like setup.
Development began in 1988, the soviet have the industrial capabilities, just like they also have said capabilities to develop steam catapults, which should be inested on after the Marshall gets out of the picture
Objekt 195.gif
 
The Rabel with a conventional turret has potential. But the tech isn't there for a T-14 like setup. So it with a Merkava IV or Leo 2A6/7 turret.
I would say that the Rebel is a good choice to pursue as is. Though they would need to drop the caseless ammunition as it is not ready (nor will it be for a long while... if ever) given the higher fear and paranoia (than OTL) in the Soviet military of NATO and a possible war engineered by Reagan. The requirements for the next future tank might be postponed to get an interim solution now than in a few years. The Merkava like tank is already a thing btw, though I doubt it will be ready until the 90s. (Object 299)
Development began in 1988, the soviet have the industrial capabilities, just like they also have said capabilities to develop steam catapults, which should be inested on after the Marshall gets out of the picture
View attachment 836111
Too late. It is 1983 right now and only in 1984 it was decided on the 152 mm as the armament for the future Soviet MBT. But the much higher tension between the Soviet Union and NATO (and China) might force a T-62 situation - combining everything advanced that is ready into an interim vehicle to combat the newest western tanks.

The 490A Rebel is the perfect fit for that, also the 125 mm 2A66 cannon could be utilized (depleted uranium sabot) until a turret with the 152 becomes available. Wonder if there will be TTL a 1986 directive for a replacement/upgraded T-72/80 tank?
 
Top