By the way, I feel that the Communist states to instill more fear of the claimed neo-fascism in the West would probably call the Anti-Warsaw Coalition the 2nd Anti-Comintern Pact.
 
Question. Since it was mentioned in the second to last update not all of the Soviet's allies were going to actually help them fight(like China which is going to just supplies them with materials) how many of the Warsaw Pact and Nato allies are actually gonna be involved in fighting?
 
Guys looking back over the TL noticed something that might calm things down in regards to how bad the war will get.
In the SCOTUS update the date's when the judges either die or step down is show and RFK is a member until 2009 so the war isn't going to destroy the US. Now how much damage will happen still no clue though
 

Wallet

Banned
I'm guessing this update took place before the 1988 election?

Postponing or suspending elections? That's a very scary thought. Under no circumstances should that ever occur. If Lincoln allowed them in 1864 and FDR in 1944, there's no reason in the world that Rumsfeld should try anything stupid like this.
 
I'm guessing this update took place before the 1988 election?

Postponing or suspending elections? That's a very scary thought. Under no circumstances should that ever occur. If Lincoln allowed them in 1864 and FDR in 1944, there's no reason in the world that Rumsfeld should try anything stupid like this.
Judging by the fact that, by this time, Kerry is senator, Prog leadership has changed over, and the war has already started, it seems that this post begins after the election.

Also, Prediction time:

  • Nato wins, as evidenced by the switch from the USSR to Russia in 1991.
  • Still, america will be nuked at least once and Rumsfeld will take a beating in the polls.
  • the 1992 election pits Silber for the Dems vs Bundy for the Republicans vs Someone who wasn't involved in politics IOTL for the progs. Bundy campaigns by defending without hesitation Rumsfeld's actions during the war, but Rumsfeld does something especially heinous which boosts Silber's popularity. Silber will win, Bundy will come in last, and a glorious Dem-Prog coalition leads America into the post war world.
  • Someone will try to assassinate Rumsfeld.
 
I suspect when all is said and done Rumsfeld will be remembered as a man who did what was necessary to win the war, but by no means a good man.
 

Wallet

Banned
Judging by the fact that, by this time, Kerry is senator, Prog leadership has changed over, and the war has already started, it seems that this post begins after the election.

Also, Prediction time:

  • Nato wins, as evidenced by the switch from the USSR to Russia in 1991.
  • Still, america will be nuked at least once and Rumsfeld will take a beating in the polls.
  • the 1992 election pits Silber for the Dems vs Bundy for the Republicans vs Someone who wasn't involved in politics IOTL for the progs. Bundy campaigns by defending without hesitation Rumsfeld's actions during the war, but Rumsfeld does something especially heinous which boosts Silber's popularity. Silber will win, Bundy will come in last, and a glorious Dem-Prog coalition leads America into the post war world.
  • Someone will try to assassinate Rumsfeld.
I'm guessing 1990 midterms since he only mentions congressman. Still horrific
 
I'm guessing this update took place before the 1988 election?

Postponing or suspending elections? That's a very scary thought. Under no circumstances should that ever occur. If Lincoln allowed them in 1864 and FDR in 1944, there's no reason in the world that Rumsfeld should try anything stupid like this.
By what @Bulldoggus wrote, I don't think Rumsfeld was advocating suspension of elections but rather a "Gentleman's agreement" between the parties to cement the status quo during the war by not seriously contesting seats held by the other party.
 
Top