No Chernobyl TL

A timeline where Chernobyl not happened: (note this is written in the job and is only a first primitive version but I not resist to make some lines in my return to the forum)

1986 POD: the accident of Chernobyl not happens (in fact in OTL the accident was cauded by a mixture of incompetence, bad luck and failure of the every security measure, and also the test prove, made of an incompetetent manner by the technicians, that caused the accident was an independent decision of these technicians (it seems that it was not previst make a test of the reactor on this day, so Chernobyl was a monument to the bad luck and the incompetence of the soviet nuclear industry)): the security measures not fails completely and warns the technicians that avorts the test –later some of these technicians will be dismissed after some reports are sent to the soviet high autorities about the dangers of the test-

Without Chernobyl, the glasnost not happens so quickly and permits the perestroika advance far more before the liberal measures of glasnot could be made (in fact one of the objectives of the glasnost was the transparence before new natural or artificial disasters, this was one of the important objectives of the glasnot which shows that Chernobyl was an important factor at: 1 the beginning of the glasnost and 2 the initial decision of make from the beginning a way to radical measures in the glasnost) so because this glasnost is not implemented so soon and so radical which will permit to give more breath to the economic reforms:

1986-1988 Slow Reforms:

Basically an implementation of andropovian measures with some more radical reforms: permission of autonomous business but under inspection of the state, joint industrial projects with foreign companys, and measures of flexibilization about the need of each unity could change their objectives according the circumstances also there are a serie of measures to transform the COMECON in a real Organization of Cooperation between Socialist States, in these times the figures more importants apart of Gorbachev are Ryzkov as the technocrat that combined with the other important figure Ligachev the ideologist attempts to make technocratic reforms without making substantial changes in the socialist way of the Soviet Union.

In the international field Afganistan continues to being a problem, but without the great economic problem caused by Chernobyl Gorbachev has decided to postpone a possible retreat until 1989 before he wants to achieve a treaty of elimination of the IRBM with the NATO (got in june 1988) and could be sure that the eastern allies will be pursue the way of perestroika (there is at the difference of OTL an increasing pression from Gorbachev to make the Warsaw Pact allies made a perestroika politic) 1988 see the joint meeting of Warsaw Pact and COMECON in may 1988 in Warsaw that made to public knowledge all a serie of projects about collaboration to implement a growing in the economic conditions of the population of the COMECON countries, this and the summer manouvers of the Warsaw Pact in Poland in june-july 1988 are seen also as a measure of pression to get a positive vote of the polish in the referendum in november 1988 about implementation of a similar politic of reforms in Poland, by a narrow margin the referendum gets the minimum of 50% of participation to get possible that the positive vote in the referendum could be legal.

The victory in the polish referendum is seen not only as a victory of the polish government in his plans of reforms, also is seen a personal victory of Gorbachev,

..... more coming.

Note: this is only a drawing writing because this is written in the job, I expect Saturday or Sunday continue with a more perfect version. (and I expect also make some new posts about Den Xiaoping not gains the power)

For the moment any comments? Thoughts? Questions? All the commentaries will be very welcomed.
 
A timeline where Chernobyl not happened:

POD: 23 april 1986 the test not authorized that caused the accident in Chernobyl is made but the complete failure of the security measures that in OTL happened in TTL is not so total: some of the measures work and the feared technicians that made the test decide before the warnings to avort the test (later a report arrive to soviet high authorities indicating the circumstances of the incident(1) and the technicians involved are dismissed).

The consecuences are that the glasnost measures that was implemented in part as an answer to show the soviet people the will of the government to change the form of acting of the soviet authorities in giving answer to disasters and making more transparent the actuations of the soviet organisms are postponed.

This mean that glasnost will not implemented so soon and so radical that in OTL giving more time to the perestroika reforms to act without a pression of a public opinion that suddenly could protest, discuss and opine(2).

1. Slow reforms: 1986-1988.

Gorbachev is decided to make cautious steps in this stage: their measures combined the old andropovian measures of combat against the corruption existing in the soviet bureaucracy and a more flexibilization of the mechanisms of decision, apart of these old strategies some more measures are implemented in this period: in november of 1986 a reform is made to permit a flexibilization and a more opening politic respect to foreign comerce, special mention is the Law about Joint Societies of 23 february 1987 that permit in a regular basis the institution in some circumstance of mixt societies with western companies, the first agreements was with Italian societies in the field of the automotion and with german and japanese companies to could exploit the large mineral resources of Siberia(3).
These years so saw basically attempting a flexibilization of the foreign economic relations with the western world including contacts with US companies for invest in the Soviet Union(4) combined with a fight against the corruption and for flexibilize the mechanisms of the soviet bureaucracy, only two laws could be considered "radical" The Law of Autonomous Activity of 14 march 1987 that contemplated the permission to private activities within the familiar unit in the industry and the Law of Cooperatives of 6 november 1987 that made posible although very restricted the existence of private business under the form of cooperatives in sectors of for example restaurants, travel agencies... this last law but made a serie of restrictions to this activities that in the practic made difficult the existance of these cooperatives.
Gorbachev considered the need of making these cautious measures to not alienate the conservative sectors existents in the bureaucracy and was supported strongly by his collaborators in the way of perestroika that informally formed apart of Politburo a kind of little Assesment Council to Gorbachev: the technocrat Nikolai Ryzhkov, the ideologist Egor Ligatchev(5)and Lev Zaikov charged with the defense and industry themes.
In the international field Gorbachev with his foreign minister Edvard Shevardnadze seek clearly a detente with the United States and a reduction of the nuclear arsenals that was in part obstructed by the afgan problem and the US Star Wars initiative, finally an INF treaty was signed in 18 june 1988(6), the afgan problem was also a mess for the Gorbachev politics, the introduction of Stingers in october 1986, the assumption publicily by the Soviet Minister of Defense of high air losses in april 1988 and the creation of a coalition government in Afganistan between the ruling PDPA and some chiite formations in june 1988(7) (basically the Hezb-e-Wahdat leaded by Abdul Ali Mazari) announced the final soviet retreat that begin in july 1989.

An increasing pression was also exercised from mid 1987 over the Eastern European allies to convince of the need of economic reforms also in the countries of Warsaw Pact, these pressions get a mixt succes with only Poland and Hungary at the end of 1988 clearly in a way of imitation of the soviet perestroika politics(8).

Another point of importance was the Joint Conference of the Warsaw Pact and COMECON in Warsaw in may 1988 that makes publicily announcement of the will of the COMECON governments to form an authentic Socialist Economic Community more or less based in the European Economic Community, also the Warsaw Pact announced his new doctrine of Defensive-Ofensive, this conference in Warsaw together with the summer manouvers of the Warsaw Pact in june-july 1988 in Poland are seen also as pression measures to favour the victory in the polish referendum about Legislative and Economic reforms of november 1988 that at the end although by a narrow margin get the 50% of participation to make legal the victory of the yes in the referendum.

This victory in the polish referendum is seen clearly not only as a victory of Jaruzelski government, also is seen as a personal victory of Gorbachev.

Any ideas or opinions? Come on boys (and girls:D) I am sure that an ATL about perestroika and no Chernoby could produce some interesting ideas and comments between my forum partners.

(1) Surely reported by some of the partners of the technicians involved in the test: you know a form to expel possible adversaries in your race to high posts.
(2) Naturally when you has suddenly the possibility of protest it is a natural instinct in a dictatorial society after some cautious words to begin to protest massively, and the first victim of this process of freedom of mind is the perestroika critized by the population because 1: too much moderate or 2: too much radical
(3) Also although at the end the chinese-soviet talkings of february-march 1988 failed in achieve a new true opening of relations between the two great communist nations -principally caused by the problem of Cambodia- one of the accords get in these talkings was the collaboration between chinese and soviet state enterprises to exploit the resources of Siberia and Manchuria using the text of the Law of Joint Societies.
(4) Most part of this conversations with US companies suffered a giant debacle with the Silicon Valley Scandal when an special comission of the Senate determined that most part of the companies in Silicon Valley had made use of ilicit or illegal forms in exporting technology to Soviet Union (basically making a look these companies in another side when these irregular procedures was made in exchange of more presence in the soviet economy with more facilities that the legally contemplated in the Law of Joint Societies, between the technology that could be sent to Soviet Union was microchips for ballistic missiles and it seemed aeronautic technology that was a key factor in the development of the Mig-33 FastFox in 1990), this scandal and the theme of the Star Wars was crucial to a sudden break in the negotiations for the INF treaty finally signed in 18 june 1988.
(5) Egor Ligatchev was at the beginning an ally of Gorbachev and a member of his team only the even more radical glasnost and perestroika measures made of Ligatchev an adversary of Gorbachev in OTL, in TTL with for the moment little glasnost and cautious perestroika measures Ligatchev is a strong supporter and member of the Gorbachev team.
(6) In part the final acceleration in signing the INF treaty was the soviet decission to let apart the Star Wars problem for later possible conversations about Strategic Forces and the need of the republican to get an international success that makes forget the electorate the Irangate and the Wall Street crack of february 1988 and the each time more evident failure of the Reaganomics, George Bush would be finally elected as president of US but at the difference of OTL Michael Dukakis was defeated only by a narrow margin being California at the end with his final support to Bush the important factor for the republican victory.
(7) With some differences, the model of coalition government in Afganistan would be used as an example to the coalition governments in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia the begin to being formed in 1989-1990.
(8) The most opposite government against the perestroika politics apart of the romanian regime was the Eastern German Republic, Erich Honecker practically was opposed to the most part of the ecomic soviet measures and publicily made clear his position, indirectally was helped in his opposition by chancellor Helmut Kohl that considered the perestroika an exercise of soviet propaganda and only economical measures to strengthen the power of Soviet Union without aplying real democratic measures: the two leaders would pay a great cost for their positions, Erich Honecker would be dismissed from the GDR Politburo in february 1990 caused by the mutinies of january-february 1990 in Leipzig and Dresden and Helmut Kohl lost the general elections this same year against the SPD candidate Oskar Lafontaine.
 

Darkest

Banned
While I am not endowed with too much knowledge about this era (I need to brush up my near-Soviet collapse history) it does look very interesting. Chernobyl was a big event. The bad morale from the meltdown sunk the Soviet Union at least a few years. Hopefully we see some communist survival in this timeline.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
I guess this could lead to an energy crisis in countries reliing mostly on nuclear energy

No Chernobyl ---> building of Nuclear power continues strongly
--> prices of Uranium start to rise strongly in the mid-nineties,
10 years earlier

Especially if the (partly) nuclear disarment in the 90is is butterflied away
 
Originally posted by Darkest
Chernobyl was a big event. The bad morale from the meltdown sunk the Soviet Union at least a few years. Hopefully we see some communist survival in this timeline.

Yes, also the attempt to recover the soviet people of this bad morale beginning with radical glasnost measures had at the end unfortunate effects opening the way to the growing nationalism and the beginning of the end of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union.
Effectively there will some communist survival in this timeline although Gorbachev was a man that seemed to disaprove the use of the force at least if there was not a popular support behind it (one thing is to make a show of force as for example in TTL with summer manouvers of Warsaw Pact in Polan in june-july 1988 another different thing is use the tanks to supress rebellions and unrest), this could be fatal for the Warsaw Pact if the reforms begin to fail in the next years (but I could say also that there won´t fall of Berlin Wall in 1989).

Originally posted by Oberdada
I guess this could lead to an energy crisis in countries reliing mostly on nuclear energy

No Chernobyl ---> building of Nuclear power continues strongly
--> prices of Uranium start to rise strongly in the mid-nineties,
10 years earlier

Especially if the (partly) nuclear disarment in the 90is is butterflied away

Could be, one thing is sure the nuclearization of the soviet economy continues and in part because this the economic agreements with China search to a joint participation of the Uranium resources in Manchuria for part of the soviets and the uranium resources in Siberia for part of the chinese, both potences benefit but clearly more the Soviet Union that before Chernobyl had made of the need of being autonomous energetically using the nuclear energy one of the principal horses of battle of the Gorbachev economic reforms.
The nuclear disarmament surely will continue, one of the things very clear for Gorbachev is the need of detente with the USA and the nuclear disarmament to stop the growing and desestabilizing costs of the armaments race.

Another interesting thing talking about strategic resources is the problem about oil, in fact the principal producter of oil was the Soviet Union, and was one of the principal revenues for the soviet economy, but alas with the descense of the oil prices in the mid 80´s the soviet economy suffers an important hit this means that a kuwaiti crisis leaded by an Irak that wants to get high the oil prices woul benefit a lot the Soviet Union and in TTL we will can see Kuwait Crisis in 1990 but different of our TL.


By last thanks to stringtheory for his recommendation of the book, it is no doubt that the disaster of Chernobyl marked the lifes and the minds of a lot of people and as say Darkest the fall of soviet morale was evident.
 
So instead of the implosion of Russian society and 10 years of kleptocracy, we see Russia developing as an economy and liberalizing gradually?
While I can't predict a rosy future (it is, after all, Russia), even if Gorby's reforms don't succeed and industrial oligarchy holds power, it would be better than OTL for Russia.
 

Stalker

Banned
... the test prove, made of an incompetetent manner by the technicians, that caused the accident was an independent decision of these technicians (it seems that it was not previst make a test of the reactor on this day, so Chernobyl was a monument to the bad luck and the incompetence of the soviet nuclear industry)): the security measures not fails completely and warns the technicians that avorts the test –later some of these technicians will be dismissed after some reports are sent to the soviet high autorities about the dangers of the test...

As the "victim" of Chernobyl, I with all responsibility declare that above test WAS NOT MADE INDEPENDENTY. I cannot say, whether it was made incompetently but the test itself was incluses into the training Programme for that shift that took the control on that damned day of 26 April 1986. One of the mistakes of the technician was that when he saw the indicator of overload of the reactor, he panicked and puled the graphite rods al way back and there was a jam and water from the pool went on coming to inner cilinder of the fue cell of the RBMK (reaktor bolshoy moshchnosti kanalniy). In fact, this was the only Nucear Plant in Ukraine that utiised reactors of that type - reactors-multipliers of weapon plutonium. What happened, you may ask? All right, when tou have over 150 tons of uranium-238, it woud simpy mean that water coming from the pool wil simply discrease the velocity of neutrons and bigger masses of uranium-238 may start an uncontroled chain reaction. That actualy happened. The explosion blowed up the heavy lead of the reactor, tossed it over through the ceiling ruining it, and then radioactive whirlpool went through the neighbouring forest - now we know it as "Ginger Forest".
... Without Chernobyl, the glasnost not happens so quickly and permits the perestroika advance far more before the liberal measures of glasnot could be made...

Well, actually glastonst and perestroika were started a year earlier, and Chernobyl didn't play a major role in their deveopment. IMO, You should have invented a different POD to initiate Den Xiaoping-like reformation of the USSR.
 
People in Chernobyl made a lot of mistakes - they were supposed to put down the output of electrical power to 20% of standard, but made the first mistake, and it fell to 1%. Instead of shutting the reactor down, they tried various tricks to push it up to 20% again, switching off almost all safety features. Then things got out of control.
 
Other countries might have alot more power generated from nuclear plants. America would probably be one, because the bureaucratic mess needed to get one would probaby not be so rigorous, as it mostly has to do with security and the like tha became muh more important after the event.
 
Originally posted by Stalker
As the "victim" of Chernobyl, I with all responsibility declare that above test WAS NOT MADE INDEPENDENTY. I cannot say, whether it was made incompetently but the test itself was incluses into the training Programme for that shift that took the control on that damned day of 26 April 1986. One of the mistakes of the technician was that when he saw the indicator of overload of the reactor, he panicked and puled the graphite rods al way back and there was a jam and water from the pool went on coming to inner cilinder of the fue cell of the RBMK (reaktor bolshoy moshchnosti kanalniy). In fact, this was the only Nucear Plant in Ukraine that utiised reactors of that type - reactors-multipliers of weapon plutonium. What happened, you may ask? All right, when tou have over 150 tons of uranium-238, it woud simpy mean that water coming from the pool wil simply discrease the velocity of neutrons and bigger masses of uranium-238 may start an uncontroled chain reaction. That actualy happened. The explosion blowed up the heavy lead of the reactor, tossed it over through the ceiling ruining it, and then radioactive whirlpool went through the neighbouring forest - now we know it as "Ginger Forest".

Writing these lines from the work (sssh, this is a secret I am in a brek time mor or less;) :D ) Well first of all respect to incompetence as say Max Sinister in his post, there was incompetence, it is no clear who was exactly the responsible or responsible but it is clear that a lot of incompetence measures was made including not acting the security systems, respect to test made independent well I remember to have read about this, that the test had been made independently, my memory was not so good but something similar happened, not test independent but it is clear that an independent decision of pull out the security measures was made and this was an independent decision without consulting from part of a Deputy Engineer but you have reason that the test form part of the Training Progam, sorry for this mistake:eek: I remember that something independent was made , my memory confuse the test with the security measures, I suppose we would need some accounting of the Chernobyl accident, well we have this report:

"
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]What really happened at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station on April 26, 1986?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Located on the banks of the Pripyat River, sixty miles north of the Ukraine capital of Kiev, Chernobyl was a major civilian nuclear power station for the Soviet Union. The Soviets designed the Chernobyl reactors according to the RMBK model, which included natural uranium reactor fuel, a water-based cooling system and control rods and a reactor core casing made of graphite. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]This reactor model had one significant advantage over other models: It produced on average ten percent more power. Unfortunately, it had one significant disadvantage: On failure the reactor core would go "supercritical." In event of a mishap involving the control system, the reactor would heat up to the point where its fuel would melt down into a heap of slag.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Unrelated to the basic design problem, these reactors had no containment buildings. Although they were shielded by heavy, reinforced concrete, the units were not surrounded by buildings designed to withstand a reactor core explosion.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]So why did the Soviets employ this risky design? In the old Soviet Union, like everywhere else it was all about money. To the managers of their centrally-controlled economy, the ten percent additional power production glittered brightly against a backdrop of what turned out to be inferior Soviet technology and engineering. They took a chance, a calculated risk. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Sure it was a stupid thing to do, but they did it. I met with three of the investigating Hanford engineers after they returned from Chernobyl. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]They told of a Deputy Chief Engineer who had the previous year convinced Moscow to let him run an experiment that had the potential for allowing power to be drawn from the spinning turbine of a reactor that had just shut down, emergency power that could be used to run emergency coolant pumps during the interim while the emergency diesel generators were coming on line. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Although this engineer was not nuclear trained and really knew nothing about nuclear reactors, the idea seemed to have merit, and a successful prosecution of this concept would elevate this Deputy Chief Engineer to the top of his peer group. He eventually received permission and some time before the accident attempted to run the experiment. Unexpected problems caused the reactor safety systems to shut it down before he could run the experiment. Although red-faced with embarrassment, he petitioned for, and eventually received a second chance, but apparently was also told about dire consequences should he fail again. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]When the time came, and in order to prevent the reactor from shutting down during the second run, he ordered all five safety systems bypassed, and he also had all the backup electrical systems shut down, including the emergency diesel generators that could have powered the reactor controls in an emergency.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]He probably felt safe doing this because he did not intend on running the reactor for more than a few minutes under load. After all, what could possibly happen in a few short minutes? And, not being nuclear-trained, he had no idea of what unintended consequences could result from disconnecting these systems. Although we will never know for sure, he may have been thinking that the worst-case scenario would be a complete shutdown of the reactor as would happen if the fuel supply were cut off from a conventional boiler.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]As luck would have it, unexpected power demand that afternoon delayed the onset of the experiment until late in the evening. In order to get the experiment underway, the engineers needed to reduce reactor power to minimum, and because they were behind schedule, they reduced the power level more rapidly than this reactor design could handle. This caused a buildup of neutron-absorbing fission byproducts which poisoned the reaction process and threatened to shut it down altogether. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Since that would have spoiled the experiment a second time (Hello Siberia), to compensate, they withdrew most of the control rods. Because of the poisoning, this allowed a power increase to barely 30 megawatts, which was just sufficient to bring the reactor into its most unstable range. Something had to be done immediately.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]There were only two choices: do absolutely nothing, and wait twenty-four hours for the poisoning to dissipate, or increase the power immediately.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]With the threat of exile to Siberia in the wings, we know what choice they made.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The engineers finally marginally stabilized reactor power at 200 megawatts - one fifth of the unit's design power. But because the reaction was still poisoned, they had pulled all but six control rods from the core. The absolute design minimum for this reactor was thirty rods kept in the core at all times, so the immediate situation was dire.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]About a half hour later they decided to commence the actual experiment and shut down the turbine generator. Their intent was to see if the turbine could still supply coolant pump power even though it was only coasting - no longer being driven by the reactor. A successful outcome would prove that they did not need to obtain outside power to maintain proper cooling levels when they decoupled a reactor and its turbine. An engineer with nuclear training could have told them the answer without conducting the experiment. But these guys weren't nukes. With reduced electrical power, the pumps slowed, reducing the flow of cooling water.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Modern nuclear reactors used in the United States and the rest of the world control neutron level by absorbing them with Boron or Cadmium control rods. The primary coolant acts as a moderator by slowing the neutrons. The RMBK model, however, works in reverse, using graphite rods to moderate the neutrons, and the primary coolant to absorb them.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]At this critical juncture on April 26, 1986, we had a reactor operating at a significant power level with almost all the moderating control rods pulled out. The reactor was still stable - although barely - because the primary coolant was absorbing neutrons as fast as they were being produced. At this point, disaster struck: The coolant pumps slowed as a result of reduced electrical power from the shut down turbine, so the cooling water moved more slowly through the system. It stayed in the reactor core longer, getting hotter, and finally began to boil. But steam cannot absorb neutrons: Suddenly the neutron flux - the total emission of neutrons from the reactor fuel skyrocketed.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The reactor operators immediately hit the emergency button designed to drive all the control rods back into the fuel core, but since all backup power had been shut down, even the emergency diesel generators, the only available electrical power came from the slowing turbine. This meant that the already slow primary coolant pumps had even less power, and so the skyrocketing neutron flux increased even more. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]This is when another design problem of the RMBK became evident. The control rods had graphite tips followed by a one meter hollow segment (I don't know why, they just did), followed by a five-meter graphite section. As soon as the rods penetrated the core, they displaced more coolant without themselves absorbing any neutrons, because of the hollow section. "[/SIZE][/FONT]

from Defense Watch of january 2002 link here http://www.sftt.org/dw01162002.html#7

so clearly we have a POD in the figure of this Deputy Engineeer so if he had not decided to not disconnect all the security measures or if he had had more knowledge in nuclear themes, or a different person

Originally posted by Stalker
Well, actually glastonst and perestroika were started a year earlier, and Chernobyl didn't play a major role in their deveopment. IMO, You should have invented a different POD to initiate Den Xiaoping-like reformation of the USSR.

Respect to perestroika, well I say that principal change was glasnost happened later, respect to perestroika i don´t say that happened later that in OTL only that happened not so radical because in part glasnost not so radical permitted a better option of manouvers of perestroika and not so climate of free public opinion accussing perestroika of not making real changes which proved fundamental in more radical measure of perestroika, in fact 1985 see the first measures althoug typically andropovian (you know attacks against corruption and the problem of alcoholism and measures like this), respect to this point we agree totally ( in fact the term perestroka was an old word first used in 1979 for indicate "economic reforms").

So glasnost is the problem, Stalker in my books that I use of Reference: Akal state of world 1987, 1988, 1989, El Pais State of World 1987, 1988; and State of World 1985 and 1986 from Sopena or Salvat Editors or Grijalbo (I don´t remember in this last case what editorial was -writing the lines from the work, although when I stay at home I look what editorial is in these last books) I will use also Dictionary of the 20 century of Hutchinson, Dictionary of the Modern Biografies 1945-2000 from Salvat Editions and other books and also books from the spanish specialist Carlos Taibo (aah the holy Public libraries) considered in Western Europe and Spain as one of the specialists about Soviet Union (in Amazon you have a list of his books http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=Carlos Taibo&tag=imdb-adbox&index=books&link_code=qs&page=1)

in all this books one thing is clear that glasnost not happened truly (with the first measures of partial amnesties and beginning of criticism to old figures of Soviet Union like Stajonov or the child that dennounce his fathers for antisocialists during the 30´s or Stalin as not true examples of a socialist should be, and also reivindication of all of the old figures like Bulganin, Kamenev...) until 1986 and is popularly considered that Chernobyl marked an impass between the consideration of aplication of true glasnost measures, before Chernobyl the possible measures of glasnot was little thing and in fact as I say one of the principal aspects or objectives of the glasnost made public was to achieve a total transparence when natural or artificial disasters happened informing truly the population (if we remember during Chernoby disaster the soviet authorities made an authentic exercise during weeks of disinformation and not accepting the true publicily only weeks after the accident was accepted by Gorbachev the true nature of the accident) also I don´t say that glasnot will not happened in TTL only that it will later that in OTL and not so radical.

So Stalker the POD is correct, although it won´t Den Xiapoing style reforms, some kind of glasnot will be implemented as I say in my first post but different in time and in a more moderate way than in OTL (so not Den Xiaoping style reforms, in fact in TTL will be implemented more the original project of Gorbachev and not the even more reactions to the facts and improvisations even more disorganized that characterized the Gorbachev project in OTL from more or less mid 1987 or beginning of 1988)
 

Stalker

Banned
OK, it's your timeline after all. However, you should have read Soviet literature journals of 1985 to understand how far was striving for revision of our past even then, and Chernobyl was an important point in the history but I personally think that it followed glastonst policy... with certain delay.
Writing your TL, you should bear in mind that Gorbie should not be that different from one in OTL. Otherwise it would be like ASBs.;)
Moreover, liberalising social life together with economy is going to ruin USSR for it was a totalitarian state and each new information about Bolshevicks' crimes are liable to accumulate the social explosion to happen once. Going to save USSR, then act like Den Xiaoping, and if students are revolting on the Red Square, just press them into asphalt by the tanks' trucks like that was done on Thananmeng. Give whatever impetus to private initiative, suppress whatever free thought. Shut down all literature magazins that publicate "Dog's heart" by Bulgakov, "D-r Zhivago" by Pasternak, "Clock-work orange" by Burgess etc. Purges, KGB, and purges again. Privatiosation, denationalisation and privatisation again. That's the recipe. All other measures and semimeasures will kill the USSR for sure.
Ruthlessly? Yes. But there is no other way if you are going to save USSR.:cool:
 
Well in fact, I think that the USSR could be saved without that measures so ruthless (certainly in my other timeline "Den Xiaoping not gains the power" the USSR is predisposed to use more of the measures said by you) the problem will be that the USSR saved could be at 2006 a very different USSR, also Gorbachev was a man as you say not very pleased with violent measures although in some cases he was decided to use it (Baku january 1990), as you have seen the summer manouvers of Warsaw Pact in TTL in june-july 1988 are used as a pression for get the positive vote of the polish with the fear thas is better make reforms of the own that the soviets could impose it (the polish remember all the situation of 1981) but in fact Gorbachev in TTL is same reticent to use the force, although not the force show, naturally if the polish knew that in part Gorbachev is making a bluff of a possible military intervention in Poland well clearly the things had been very different in TTL and more similar to OTL.

I thank a lot your comments although I have read books to documentate me (the books mentioned before, by the way the Year books of 1985 and 1986 that I did not rembered what editorial was is from Salvat Editorial) it is not the same having a person that has lived in the Old Soviet Union (now living in Ukraine) and could inform which was the situation then; respect to Gorbachev personality, you say "Writing your TL, you should bear in mind that Gorbie should not be that different from one in OTL. Otherwise it would be like ASBs.;)" is curious to see what opinion one had of Gorbachev and his reforms in 1986, from Year book of 1986 refering to the XXVII Congress of Soviet Communist Party in march 1986 (translated from the spanish, so sorry for the mistakes

"In the internal field, the new redaction of the programme of the Soviet Communist Party, in that was introducing modifications tending to racionalize the economic system and foment the productive systems, and the promotion of the diverse personalities near the new General Secretary, like Nikolai Ryjkov, Viktor Chebrikov and Igor Ligatchov, were the notes more significatives of a change not only formal, but that was limited by the reafirmation of the economic centralization and the paper of the party as only force that determine the fondamental orientation of the internal and external politc of the USSR. the principal new thing, together with the new ways of acting and the rising of the critics about the inercy of the system, was the enter in scene of a team of thechnocrats for displace the clasic bureaucrats of the nomenklatura, their absolutism would be based in great part, in opinion of the new leaders, of the incompetence. These technocrats would have promoted by Gorbachev to get a major efficiency in the soviet economy without wake any ilusion of politic liberalization. It would exagerate to consider the objectives of Gorbachev and his team the democratization of the regime"

"Although being the lack of liberties and ways for a sufficient public participation the factor that more is an obstacle to the revitalization of the soviet economy, the XXVII Soviet Comunist Party Congress was in the ideological and social aspect a new song to the most pure inmovilism"
Extracted from USSR: The Gorbachev effect article in Year Book 1986 of Salvad Editions.

The problem is that said by Taibo and other authors it seemed there is various Gorbachev during the period 1985-1991: the Gorbachev that believed in the communism and making reforms more tendent to revitalize the economy and making more transparent the system but without discussing the core of the socialist system 1985-mid 1987, The Gorbachev that believes each time more in the need of create a new socialism very different that the primitive projects of reform in 1985-1986, corresponding to period second mid 1987-1990 and the Gorbachev clearly in a way that with the time could conserve some kind of union but more of a capitalist economy that socialist 1990-1991.

Why Gorbachev changed his mind?, which was truly his project?, from which moment his project was transformed in a simply no project, more a mixture of desperate measures combined with reactions and improvisations to even more accelerated events and unrest?

There are a lot of discussion about this between the historians, and Taibo and another authors although giving his opinion also name the different explanations of different authors, because in reality the majority continue without knowing with total security which was the initial project and ideas of Gorbachev?

I assume the personality of Gorbachev only that in TTL because No Chernobyl (and assuming the popular assumption between different historians of the possible point of impass centered in Chernobyl) Gorbachev has more time to implement economic reforms without forcing to make a real glasnost could se far sooner and substantial that the initial project in his mind.

I have in mind his personality, and well because I want not to say the end of TTL and advance too much an idea of the next segments (I need like in the thriller films to maintain the tension, saying the final or giving too much clues would be like telling all the film to a group of friends that want to go to see the film) I could not say too much about how will be develop this timeline: only say that in TTL at the end you will could see that the Gorby of TTL is not so different of the Gorby of OTL (but yes different because as you know if the Gorby of 1986 of OTL had known that in 1990´s after the fall of Soviet Union he would make announcements for the Pizza Hut, well the Gorbachev of 1986 had shouted you : You are completely mad:D , but we know how strange and sorry pathetic was see Gorbachev one of the men more powerful of the Earth in 1986 making announcements of a capitalista US chain of pizza restaurants:eek: :eek: ).

Also as say answering to Darkest sentence "Hopefully we see some communist survival in this timeline." I say yes we will see some comunist survival, but I say some, (to see an scenario where Soviet Union remains very strong and powerful and it will continue in 2006 being a great superpotence I recommend instead to read the other timeline of mine Deng Xiaoping not gains the power), and well I think that in these moments I am beginning to giving some clues:D

Also thanks for your information about the nuclear disaster, in the next segment I will make some addings to the first part Slow reforms 1986-88 and also modifiyng the mistaken information about circumstances of Chernobyl.

Naturally thanks also to all the other opinions: Max Sinister, Darkest, stringtheory, Oberdada, The Bald Imposter and Brandonazz.

Another time to express that please all the opinions and comments will be very welcomed (and also discussed:D ), as I say a timeline of an ATL Soviet Union leaded by Gorbachev could be very interesting and a good scenario of discussion.

As you know I have some other timelines before some personal and work circumstances makes me disappear from the Forum from june until now (with a brief reapparition in august) I expect to continue with this timelines, althoug telling the truth possibily I will be centered in this new timeline and also I expect to give some more segments of Den Xiaoping not gains the power (I expect also eventually make some more updates of the other timelines, although my two timelines about late cold war PODS will have priority) -it is possible also that some brief timelines appears later but being more schematic type timelines and not very deep because I promised in the past that I try to make in timelines some of my other projects of my mind -this include another timeline with a POD in the late Cold War years, it would be named the Grishin alternative and it would be based in this article http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0403/veteran.htm, the POD would be that Romanov get stay at time in the votation and get the sufficient support to make not possible the election of Gorbachev instead a new stopgap candidate is elected with the support of Romanov and other members of the Politburo: Victor Grishin -yes the same guy elected in "Den Xiaoping not gains the power" in 1987 when the Andropov of that TL dies, although naturally with different circumstances-.

By last another thing to say in this post appart of the books named that I will use as a source (and some more not mentioned) I say you to look what kind of sources I use in Internet and also to could all the persons enjoy of the information that I obtain some interesting resources for my late Cold war timelines in these three links:

http://www.cidob.org/bios/castellano/indices/indices.htm

that is Biographies of Political Leaders CIDOB a superb site with great profiles of different actual leaders (and in each biography also there is a lot of information about other characters, situation and evolution of differents parties and countries, for example in the five biographies of political leaders of Afganishtan you obtain a lot of information about modern history of Afganistan, different factions and politics...)
Unfortunately the site seems only to stay in spanish, but if you understand spanish you will could enjoy of a great internet site.

the other two (and yes these are in English:D):

http://www.theodora.com/wfb/abc_world_fact_book.html

All the CIA World FactBooks from 1989 edition to 2005 edition!:cool:


and finally: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html

that is the Federal Research Division of the Library of the Congres, they are updating their country files, but also letting the old files like for example the East Germany file where you can find some interesting stuff like this:

"
East Germany

Politburo


The Politburo is the party's highest decision-making body. It addresses the fundamental political problems of the party, state, economy, and culture, and it is responsible for formulating domestic, foreign, military, and security policies. The Politburo normally meets once a week, and although its meetings are conducted in secret, other members of the Central Committee, the Secretariat, and members of the Presidium of the Council of Ministers are admitted to the proceedings. Meetings are chaired by General Secretary Honecker, and decisions are arrived at by a consensus vote, although certain individuals within the Politburo, particularly long-standing members, play a major or even dominant role in determining the positions and decisions of the executive body. The Politburo is required to inform the Central Committee about the various personnel and policy issues and problems discussed during its weekly sessions. At the regular plenums of the Central Committee, held at least once every six months, one or more members of the Politburo report on issues discussed in Politburo sessions. These reports are subsequently discussed by the Central Committee membership and are then published in an abbreviated form in the SED official daily, Neues Deutschland.
The Politburo is composed of the highest officials of the party, the state, the security organs, the largest mass organizations and, unlike the Politburo of the CPSU, all ten members of the Secretariat, which directs the party apparatus through the Central Committee departments. Between 1976 and early 1984, the only additions to the ranks of the Politburo were Günter Schabowski, then the chief editor of Neues Deutschland, who became a candidate member at the Tenth Party Congress in 1981; and Egon Krenz, who was appointed in 1983 and made a Central Committee secretary at the same time. Krenz, as the youngest member of the Politburo, replaced Paul Verner as the unofficial number two man in the party leadership. After his induction into the two top party organs, Krenz became increasingly visible at Honecker's side, fueling speculation that the SED chief had already designated him as the heir apparent. In May 1984, four high-ranking officials, three of whom were already candidates, were made full members of the Politburo: Werner Jarowinsky, deputy minister of trade and supply; Günther Kleiber, deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers and an expert on agriculture and an occasional emissary to the Middle East; Schabowski, editor-in-chief of Neues Deutschland; and Herbert Haber, the SED's expert on relations with West Germany. In contrast to Jarowinsky, who had served as a candidate for twenty-one years, Haber became a full member directly, bypassing candidate status. The promotion of Jarowinsky and Kleiber raised the level of economic expertise in the Politburo. Also named to the Secretariat was Konrad Naumann, a full member of the Politburo and then head of the SED's East Berlin party organization. It was announced that Verner, veteran member of both the Politburo and the Secretariat, was relinquishing his post because of illness. Three weeks later, Krenz and Günter Mittag were made deputy chairmen of the Council of State, East Germany's "collective presidency," chaired by Honecker.
These new appointments significantly strengthened Honecker's position as undisputed leader of the party and appeared intended to strengthen his commitment to détente with West Germany. However, at the Eleventh SED Central Committee Plenum on November 22-23, 1985, it was announced that Naumann and Haber had been dropped from the Politburo and the Secretariat "for reasons of health." Although Haber departed largely because of health problems, Naumann's removal was probably politically motivated. Known for his opposition to Honecker in several key areas of domestic and foreign policy, Naumann enjoyed backing from Moscow and possessed a long record as a hardliner in his approach to relations with West Germany and his opposition to the SED's policies on culture and religion. Naumann's political demise continued when three days later he was replaced by Schabowski as East Berlin's party chief. Naumann's removal eliminated Honecker's chief rival and further strengthened the East German leader's position. In November 1986, the Politburo consisted of twenty-two full and five candidate members. The Politburo also included the head (Erich Mückenberger) of the Central Party Control Commission, an appeals board for issues related to SED membership rights. The mass organizations have been represented in the
Politburo by the head of the labor unions and the head of the youth organization, both having considerable experience as party officials.
At the Eleventh Party Congress in April 1986, there were few surprises among those elected to join the ranks of the Politburo. The decisive changes had already been made at the party's Eleventh Central Committee plenum in November 1985, when Naumann and Haber were dropped from the Politburo and Secretariat. Although there were no further dismissals at the congress, four new full members were added: Heinz Kessler, minister of defense and a Honecker confidant, and three regional secretaries, Werner Eberlein, Siegfried Lorenz, and Hans-Joachim Böhme, all experienced technocrats. These moves, as well as CPSU general secretary Mikhail S. Gorbachev's strong political endorsement of Honecker at the congress, helped the East German party chief reinforce his strong position in the top party ranks. In 1987 the first secretaries of two district party organizations (Berlin and Cottbus) were members of the Politburo. As a result of the personnel changes, six districts were represented in the Politburo by their party heads; the three new district representatives were Schabowski and Politburo candidates Gerhard Müller (Erfurt), and Werner Walde (Cottbus). Rejuvenation of the ranks of the Politburo was clearly in progress. However, the only two women members, Ingeborg Lange and Margaret Müller, candidates for thirteen and twenty-three years, respectively, were not selected to full membership. Data as of July 1987"
 
A timeline where Chernobyl not happened:

POD: 23 april 1986 the test not authorized that caused the accident in Chernobyl is made but the complete failure of the security measures that in OTL happened in TTL is not so total: some of the measures work and the feared technicians that made the test decide before the warnings to avort the test (later a report arrive to soviet high authorities indicating the circumstances of the incident(1) and the technicians involved are dismissed).

The consecuences are that the glasnost measures that was implemented in part as an answer to show the soviet people the will of the government to change the form of acting of the soviet authorities in giving answer to disasters and making more transparent the actuations of the soviet organisms are postponed.

This mean that glasnost will not implemented so soon and so radical that in OTL giving more time to the perestroika reforms to act without a pression of a public opinion that suddenly could protest, discuss and opine(2).

1. Slow reforms: 1986-1988.

Gorbachev is decided to make cautious steps in this stage: their measures combined the old andropovian measures of combat against the corruption existing in the soviet bureaucracy and a more flexibilization of the mechanisms of decision, apart of these old strategies some more measures are implemented in this period: in november of 1986 a reform is made to permit a flexibilization and a more opening politic respect to foreign comerce, special mention is the Law about Joint Societies of 23 february 1987 that permit in a regular basis the institution in some circumstance of mixt societies with western companies, the first agreements was with Italian societies in the field of the automotion and with german and japanese companies to could exploit the large mineral resources of Siberia(3).
These years so saw basically attempting a flexibilization of the foreign economic relations with the western world including contacts with US companies for invest in the Soviet Union(4) combined with a fight against the corruption and for flexibilize the mechanisms of the soviet bureaucracy, only two laws could be considered "radical" The Law of Autonomous Activity of 14 march 1987 that contemplated the permission to private activities within the familiar unit in the industry and the Law of Cooperatives of 6 november 1987 that made posible although very restricted the existence of private business under the form of cooperatives in sectors of for example restaurants, travel agencies... this last law but made a serie of restrictions to this activities that in the practic made difficult the existance of these cooperatives.
Gorbachev considered the need of making these cautious measures to not alienate the conservative sectors existents in the bureaucracy and was supported strongly by his collaborators in the way of perestroika that informally formed apart of Politburo a kind of little Assesment Council to Gorbachev: the technocrat Nikolai Ryzhkov, the ideologist Egor Ligatchev(5)and Lev Zaikov charged with the defense and industry themes.
In the international field Gorbachev with his foreign minister Edvard Shevardnadze seek clearly a detente with the United States and a reduction of the nuclear arsenals that was in part obstructed by the afgan problem and the US Star Wars initiative, finally an INF treaty was signed in 18 june 1988(6), the afgan problem was also a mess for the Gorbachev politics, the introduction of Stingers in october 1986, the assumption publicily by the Soviet Minister of Defense of high air losses in april 1988 and the creation of a coalition government in Afganistan between the ruling PDPA and some chiite formations in june 1988(7) (basically the Hezb-e-Wahdat leaded by Abdul Ali Mazari) announced the final soviet retreat that begin in july 1989.

An increasing pression was also exercised from mid 1987 over the Eastern European allies to convince of the need of economic reforms also in the countries of Warsaw Pact, these pressions get a mixt succes with only Poland and Hungary at the end of 1988 clearly in a way of imitation of the soviet perestroika politics(8).

Another point of importance was the Joint Conference of the Warsaw Pact and COMECON in Warsaw in may 1988 that makes publicily announcement of the will of the COMECON governments to form an authentic Socialist Economic Community more or less based in the European Economic Community, also the Warsaw Pact announced his new doctrine of Defensive-Ofensive, this conference in Warsaw together with the summer manouvers of the Warsaw Pact in june-july 1988 in Poland are seen also as pression measures to favour the victory in the polish referendum about Legislative and Economic reforms of november 1988 that at the end although by a narrow margin get the 50% of participation to make legal the victory of the yes in the referendum.

This victory in the polish referendum is seen clearly not only as a victory of Jaruzelski government, also is seen as a personal victory of Gorbachev.

Any ideas or opinions? Come on boys (and girls:D) I am sure that an ATL about perestroika and no Chernoby could produce some interesting ideas and comments between my forum partners.

(1) Surely reported by some of the partners of the technicians involved in the test: you know a form to expel possible adversaries in your race to high posts.
(2) Naturally when you has suddenly the possibility of protest it is a natural instinct in a dictatorial society after some cautious words to begin to protest massively, and the first victim of this process of freedom of mind is the perestroika critized by the population because 1: too much moderate or 2: too much radical
(3) Also although at the end the chinese-soviet talkings of february-march 1988 failed in achieve a new true opening of relations between the two great communist nations -principally caused by the problem of Cambodia- one of the accords get in these talkings was the collaboration between chinese and soviet state enterprises to exploit the resources of Siberia and Manchuria using the text of the Law of Joint Societies.
(4) Most part of this conversations with US companies suffered a giant debacle with the Silicon Valley Scandal when an special comission of the Senate determined that most part of the companies in Silicon Valley had made use of ilicit or illegal forms in exporting technology to Soviet Union (basically making a look these companies in another side when these irregular procedures was made in exchange of more presence in the soviet economy with more facilities that the legally contemplated in the Law of Joint Societies, between the technology that could be sent to Soviet Union was microchips for ballistic missiles and it seemed aeronautic technology that was a key factor in the development of the Mig-33 FastFox in 1990), this scandal and the theme of the Star Wars was crucial to a sudden break in the negotiations for the INF treaty finally signed in 18 june 1988.
(5) Egor Ligatchev was at the beginning an ally of Gorbachev and a member of his team only the even more radical glasnost and perestroika measures made of Ligatchev an adversary of Gorbachev in OTL, in TTL with for the moment little glasnost and cautious perestroika measures Ligatchev is a strong supporter and member of the Gorbachev team.
(6) In part the final acceleration in signing the INF treaty was the soviet decission to let apart the Star Wars problem for later possible conversations about Strategic Forces and the need of the republican to get an international success that makes forget the electorate the Irangate and the Wall Street crack of february 1988 and the each time more evident failure of the Reaganomics, George Bush would be finally elected as president of US but at the difference of OTL Michael Dukakis was defeated only by a narrow margin being California at the end with his final support to Bush the important factor for the republican victory.
(7) With some differences, the model of coalition government in Afganistan would be used as an example to the coalition governments in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia the begin to being formed in 1989-1990.
(8) The most opposite government against the perestroika politics apart of the romanian regime was the Eastern German Republic, Erich Honecker practically was opposed to the most part of the ecomic soviet measures and publicily made clear his position, indirectally was helped in his opposition by chancellor Helmut Kohl that considered the perestroika an exercise of soviet propaganda and only economical measures to strengthen the power of Soviet Union without aplying real democratic measures: the two leaders would pay a great cost for their positions, Erich Honecker would be dismissed from the GDR Politburo in february 1990 caused by the mutinies of january-february 1990 in Leipzig and Dresden and Helmut Kohl lost the general elections this same year against the SPD candidate Oskar Lafontaine.
I don't see the INF treaty happening so soon. One of the things Chernobyl did was inspire Gorbachev to try to end the arms race. Without it, he wouldn't have had the impetus to do it that he did on OTL.
 
The process of detente had begun yet although cautiously with Chernenko in 1984, Gorbachev clearly had intention to accelerate this process, in fact more than a problem associated with Chernobyl, the nuclear arms race was a problem associated with the growing cost to maintain such arsenal, the USSR practically not could maintain the rhythm of the arms race, before Chernobyl Gorbachev had showed a will for negotiate in the Geneve Conference of november 1985 and in make propositions soon in 1985 about freezing the nuclear arsenals in Europe and the suspension of the deploying of the SS-20 in Europe.
I think that the politic of try to reduce the costs of such large nuclear arsenal will continue, in fact although it was a great step for reduction of the nuclear weapons the INF treaty only meant a reduction of the 4% of the nuclear arsenals of both potences and a thing that has to be remembered is that the treaty as some experts say in that moment could be benefit more the Soviet Union that NATO, first of all the IRBM weapons eliminated could hit soviet territory (the parts of Ukraine, Belarus and European Russia under the range of the NATO IRBM) but the IRBM only could hit NATO European cities but not territory of USA, so the IRBM eliminated meant that less missiles could hit the territory of Rodina, also the nuclear umbrella over Europe that the IRBM according some experts represented was dismanteled, for the USSR it was not a bad play.
So the principal problems for negotiation I think was more the problem of Star Wars, in this TL the treaty is later signed that in OTL (december 1987 in OTL, june 1988 in TTL) because a better attempt of the Soviet Union to try to put Star Wars in the negotiations table -and also naturally the Silicon Valley Scandal- at the end the two potences need the treaty: the USSR eliminates an irrisory quantitiy of missiles but eliminate the menace over his european republics of the IRBM and permits to have a diplomatic hit presenting as a potence in the steps of the peace, for Reagan with the elections of 1988 the INF treaty could be used as a sign that the US president is also not so warmonger as depicted by the medias and presents a face very different to the public that have on mind the scandal of Irangate and the problems of Reaganomics associated with the US government and his president.
Naturally after we will need the aproval of the senate and with elections in perspective in november it won´t ratified until june 1989 (after the beginning in january 1989 of the new Congress elected and until a serie of debates had been put in the Senate until the final ratification in 2 june 1989) so in fact in TTL the real put in action of the treaty is one year later that in OTL.
 
I think also AM you will found this article interesting

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=15654

also as you say, and say in the article

"In an excerpt from his forthcoming book sent to ISN Security Watch, Vladislav Zubok of Cornell University argues that Chernobyl created a radically new perspective on security affairs for Gorbachev and the entire Soviet leadership. "Chernobyl's effect on the Soviet political leadership and the military command," Zubok argues, "was greater than any single event since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis."
The catastrophe revealed that the military doctrine of “victory” in nuclear war was a hollow shell. In addition, Zubok explains, the unforeseen expenses - as much as 3 billion rubles only one month after the accident - affected Politburo discussions of the financial burden that the continuation of a strategic arms race with the West would entail for a financially seriously overcommitted Soviet Union.
Nuclear disarmament became a moral imperative, and this new approach initially led to a breakthrough in the Stockholm negotiations on confidence-building measures. For the first time, the Soviet Union accepted local inspections on Soviet territory and created an important precedent for the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty."

but you has to have in account that as also said in the article

"
Svetlana Savranskaya also agrees that the incident deeply impressed Gorbachev and the military leadership and opened their eyes with regard to nuclear warfare. However, she emphasizes that the effect of Chernobyl on Gorbachev’s thinking on nuclear arms control was rather a shift of emphasis than a real turning point.
“Before Chernobyl, Gorbachev pushed for arms control to relieve the economic burden of an East-West arms race for the Soviet Union and to improve US-Soviet relations. After Chernobyl, he also regarded nuclear disarmament also as a personal and moral responsibility," she said.
Indeed, the minutes of the Politburo meetings and the correspondence between Reagan and Gorbachev show that the US and Soviet positions on nuclear disarmament had already been converging in the period between Gorbachev’s nomination as party secretary-general in March 1985 and the historical Geneva summit of the two leaders in November 1985.
Savranskaya believes that the exchange of letters and the face-to-face meeting in Geneva were an important learning experience for both sides.
In Geneva, Reagan and Gorbachev agreed in principle to the idea of a 50-per cent reduction in strategic arms and signed an “interim” agreement on the INF. Both leaders succeeded in building trust and opening a dialog that bore fruit as early as 15 January 1986, when it culminated in Gorbachev’s three-staged plan for eliminating nuclear missiles, warheads, bombs, and other weapons from the planet by the year 2000."

so the politics of disarmament was in the mind of Gorbachev before Chernobyl although Chernobyl proved some kind of accelerator but surely not so important as normally considered.
 

Stalker

Banned
My personal attitude to Gorbachev is rather negative. He was a kind of a populist. He has ruined a great country. Despite what they say in the West, USSR was one of the first countries in the world to declare social freedoms, to grant pensions, to equalise men and women in their civil rights. Much of the freedoms remained declarative because the state was built on blood by "ruthless dreamers" who thought that the generations to come would inevitably be better then they, more kind and generous, and they would forgive them - and that was the excuse. All they did was in their opinion made for public good. The next generations were not better, they were practical and utilised the revolutionary methods in full measure to transform a poor, mainly agricutural country into the industrial monster. Stalin was just a practical man. And a paranoic as well. Somehow, these two features of his character didn't interfere with each other. But the situation where you have an industry close to world standards of in certain spheres even better that they, and at the same time you've got fewer speciaists to support the system, thus building your economy in extensive - not intensive way - that makes possible to use low-educated people in industrial process - this is going to result in widening the gap between a very smal eite and a the rest of nation. In course of time, more cutured and educated people was grown in the USSR - the paradox is that Soviet system took great care of education despite all ideological pressure but the economy remained extensive - and nobody cared or lacked initiative to remorm it. The other paradox was that Soviet system didn't develop any other system of stimula other than compulsion. So, high percentage of educated people graduated from higher school (I guess, that percentage was even a bit higher than in Western Europe) on one hand, and the extensive economy whose basis was laid at Stain's rule and was aimed at involving low-qualified workers - these were those contradictory factors that led to coming to power of such a "liberal" person as Gorbachev.Well, back to Gorbachev. He was able to maneuvre to come to power in Politbureau to put his team-mates to key posts in the Soviet Union - Nikolai Ryzhkov, Yegor Ligachev, Edward Shevardnadze, and especially Alexander Yakovlev. Each time a new person in the news substitutied one of the gerontocrates of Old Times - I remember that.The latter played the major role in revision of ideology and liberising freedom of speech. I cannot say, it was a mistake. IMO, it was just a justified course of events - sooner or later, such leaders should have arrived on the top, and that meant start of ruining of the whoe system.In summer 1988, the Party Conference of CPSU urged for more freedom of speech and social liberties and from that point on the process became irreversibe - no! One more opportunity remains - the successfu August coup of GKChP in 1991. Get rid of Gorbachev, put back "real" marxists to power - not that suffering from hangover Vice-President Yanayev who read the Address of GKChP to nation carrying the sheet of paper with his trembling hands - it should be other men - Chief-KGBist Kryuchkov, Politbureau member Lukyanov, Head of Police Pugo, Minister of Finance Pavlov - they would put the USSR back into "iron bonds of ideoogy" but - what is interesting - they are not likely to revise the course of economic reform. They will find ideologic justification for the "new stage of sociaism". Why, "a new course" initiated by Gorby made possible for each of them to open accounts in the Swiss banks and start transfering secretly some gold reserves.So, mild and very often indecisive Mikhai Gorbachev is a wrong figure to accompish the economic reformation of the USSR.
 
Hmm, could be Stalker, although I am not so radical in those opinions, I think like other historians that Gorbachev has in some cases at least too much idealism (or ingenuity), in fact Gorby is for me an strange figure, a man that want to change the USSR but from a determined time his politic was more a mixture of improvised measures in a simple and desperate reaction to the even more accelerated events.
Respect to coup of august of 1991 it was in a lot of details an authentic disaster, not well manned, not well leaded, not well conceived, the leaders of the coup had suceeded if they had planedd a lot of far better his coup, but they not planned well, in fact they planned very bad.
Respect to the responsabilities of Gorbachev in the fall of Soviet Union, my answer would be yes in the fall of Warsaw Pact (letting the Warsaw allies alone in his way of reformation, like a laboratory of his reforms was a nonsense), I think that Chernobyl could affected morally the thinking of Gorbachev, as say in the article that I indicated in my last post Chernobyl hit morally Gorbachev, before this Gorbachev was decided to make reforms and to put strong steps in the way of the disarmament but because practical reasons, after Chernobyl, well Chernobyl was for Gorbachev as Solferino was for Napoleon III but it seems that Gorbachev was lot far more impressed for Chernobyl -which is logic because Solferino was a battle and Chernobyl like a the effects of a limited nuclear war-, so without Chernobyl Gorbachev is not so idealist that in OTL (but naturally continuing being the "idealistic" person that in OTL was before Chernobyl so we could wait some kind of similarities in the future with OTL but in less radical manner and later than in OTL).

Respect to Soviet Union, well the fall of the Soviet Union as was in 1986 could be is in the hands of Gorbachev but the fall of any kind of Soviet Union was in the hands of the august organizers of the coup, because his lack of preparation at the end makes of the failed coup a thing worse for the fate of the Sovie Union that the politics of Gorbachev.

Well, Stalker I think that the fate of Soviet Union that you had prefered is far better depicted in "Den Xiaoping not gains the power" where Gorbachev is defeated in his try to gain the election after 1987 Andropov death, the same Andropov of that Time Line consiers before dying that Gorbachev is too much radical in his thinkings and finally a majority of members of Politburo considers the same (but in that time line the alliance with China makes not necessary a kind of reforms of the style of Gorbachev -some kind or reforms yes but not the Gorbachev reforms, as Andropov in OTL and that TL agress of the need to make).

In TTL we will explore the possible effects of a No Chernobyl POD but this not means that Gorby not make in the future some of his "idealistic" mistakes, well we will what happens in next segments;)
 

Darkest

Banned
Some of the referenda would certainly be better in the Soviet Union. The more vocal republics, though, are going to have to be left to independence sooner or later. Warsaw Pact will most likely still fall through as well.
 
The process of detente had begun yet although cautiously with Chernenko in 1984, Gorbachev clearly had intention to accelerate this process, in fact more than a problem associated with Chernobyl, the nuclear arms race was a problem associated with the growing cost to maintain such arsenal, the USSR practically not could maintain the rhythm of the arms race, before Chernobyl Gorbachev had showed a will for negotiate in the Geneve Conference of november 1985 and in make propositions soon in 1985 about freezing the nuclear arsenals in Europe and the suspension of the deploying of the SS-20 in Europe.
I think that the politic of try to reduce the costs of such large nuclear arsenal will continue, in fact although it was a great step for reduction of the nuclear weapons the INF treaty only meant a reduction of the 4% of the nuclear arsenals of both potences and a thing that has to be remembered is that the treaty as some experts say in that moment could be benefit more the Soviet Union that NATO, first of all the IRBM weapons eliminated could hit soviet territory (the parts of Ukraine, Belarus and European Russia under the range of the NATO IRBM) but the IRBM only could hit NATO European cities but not territory of USA, so the IRBM eliminated meant that less missiles could hit the territory of Rodina, also the nuclear umbrella over Europe that the IRBM according some experts represented was dismanteled, for the USSR it was not a bad play.
So the principal problems for negotiation I think was more the problem of Star Wars, in this TL the treaty is later signed that in OTL (december 1987 in OTL, june 1988 in TTL) because a better attempt of the Soviet Union to try to put Star Wars in the negotiations table -and also naturally the Silicon Valley Scandal- at the end the two potences need the treaty: the USSR eliminates an irrisory quantitiy of missiles but eliminate the menace over his european republics of the IRBM and permits to have a diplomatic hit presenting as a potence in the steps of the peace, for Reagan with the elections of 1988 the INF treaty could be used as a sign that the US president is also not so warmonger as depicted by the medias and presents a face very different to the public that have on mind the scandal of Irangate and the problems of Reaganomics associated with the US government and his president.
Naturally after we will need the aproval of the senate and with elections in perspective in november it won´t ratified until june 1989 (after the beginning in january 1989 of the new Congress elected and until a serie of debates had been put in the Senate until the final ratification in 2 june 1989) so in fact in TTL the real put in action of the treaty is one year later that in OTL.
The size of the Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal continued to increase after Gorbachev became general secretary. Gorbachev may have talked about arms control before Chernobyl. But, he didn't do anything about it until after Chernobyl.
 
Top