DBWI/PC: More peaceful Soviet collapse?

Then again, we wouldn't have massive territorial adjustments. Japan wouldn't get the Kuril Islands, nor Finland Karelia.

About the territorial changes in Europe - we have to remember that Finland did not exactly want Karelia, outside a nationalist, revanchist fringe and many among the wartime evacuees. Annexing the bigger part of the Karelian ASSR was projected to be a very costly affair even when it happened - and reality has shown the problems and costs attached to the move to be even bigger than predicted, in retrospect. The thing is, though, that some leading people at the time, President Holkeri among them, saw that Finland truly needed Karelia as a buffer against the instability of the post-Soviet areas - better a border at the Ladoga to control the flow of Russian refugees and to keep the various Soviet/Russian military elements at an arms' length than to have to worry about a chaotic "Karelian Republic" next to the post-1944 border.

Now, Finland has a large Russian minority, according to some estimates bigger than the Swedish-speaking group in Finland, the Karelian areas keep eating up government funds in different ways and the Finnish military is in constant state of semi-war. Even I had to do the "emergency" 18 months in the military as a conscript back in 1999 and most Finnish reservists have two yearly bouts of refresher training now. But still I think things might well be a lot worse, all things considered. Just like in WWII, I think Finland has been very lucky through the Soviet collapse and all the chaos it brought with it.
 
Last edited:
God, there are enough people in the US who act like Bush didn't do jack shit, we don't need more of those here. What happened in San Fran was one of the worst disasters in human history, but that doesn't excuse this whitewashing/revisionism. :mad:

Bush called in Article V and NATO bombed the shit out of the Stalinists with HE and even nerve agents. It was ten times worse than what the US did to Iraq in the Arabian War.

I did mean "not retaliating in kind" and for example using a Tac Nuke (or worse) on a Russian City - not - not actually retaliating - hell after the attack on the USS Tarawa our battle group alone sunk 16 Warships and 7 subs (4 of those by Helos from Lusty) - and at the time we didn't give 2 shits which faction they belonged too.

As well as launched countless air strikes on mainland targets etc and the USMC led landing in the Crimea in support of Ukrainian Seperatists.

You know the whole "A chemical weapon is a biological weapon is a Nuclear weapon" deterrence that the NATO leaders had espoused before the breakup - ie use any of those weapons on us and we nuke you! Bush could have gone that route and pushed the big red button and probably would have been in his rights to have done so.

As it was he didn't - his response was correct IMO - he handled the situation well - hell if I was an American he would have gotten my vote - purely based on his coolness at a time of great stress.
 

ThePest179

Banned
I did mean "not retaliating in kind" and for example using a Tac Nuke (or worse) on a Russian City - not - not actually retaliating - hell after the attack on the USS Tarawa our battle group alone sunk 16 Warships and 7 subs (4 of those by Helos from Lusty) - and at the time we didn't give 2 shits which faction they belonged too.

As well as launched countless air strikes on mainland targets etc and the USMC led landing in the Crimea in support of Ukrainian Seperatists.

You know the whole "A chemical weapon is a biological weapon is a Nuclear weapon" deterrence that the NATO leaders had espoused before the breakup - ie use any of those weapons on us and we nuke you! Bush could have gone that route and pushed the big red button and probably would have been in his rights to have done so.

As it was he didn't - his response was correct IMO - he handled the situation well - hell if I was an American he would have gotten my vote - purely based on his coolness at a time of great stress.

All right, thanks for clearing that up. It's just that more people than I would have imagined like to portray Bush as "an appeasement fuckweed" after the San Fran attack.

As a side question, what would happen to all those Soviet arms - in particular their nukes - in a more peaceful collapse? would it be inevitable for a nuke or two to still get loose?
 
All right, thanks for clearing that up. It's just that more people than I would have imagined like to portray Bush as "an appeasement fuckweed" after the San Fran attack.

As a side question, what would happen to all those Soviet arms - in particular their nukes - in a more peaceful collapse? would it be inevitable for a nuke or two to still get loose?

Yes I believe that he was treaty badly and unfairly at the time - history will absolve him.

Missing nukes? I'd bloody well hope not - I would suspect that like the Weapons in Ukrainian Hands for example a given breakaway republic would be given international recognition and Guaranteed protection of its boarders upon the surrender of such weapons as part of a wider deal.

It was bad enough in this timeline with Western and Chinese forces making all of those often rushed and costly assaults where ever a suspected weapon was found.

I think as important or more importantly is the number of Russian weapon specialists capable of maintaining such weapons who remain unaccounted for after the dust had settled.

Granted most probably lie in unmarked graves but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are still alive selling their skills to the highest bidder.
 
Top