Rumsfeldia: Fear and Loathing in the Decade of Tears
- Thread starter Drew
- Start date
- Status
Very good and large updates Drew.
I think one of the consecuences of Rumsfeldia will be looking to Richard Nixon as a man with certain paranoids, and certain taste of power, but well.. he is not Spiro Agnew neither Donald Rumsfeld.
My god! Donald Rumsfeld mades that Richard Nixon seems a kindergarten child
I think one of the consecuences of Rumsfeldia will be looking to Richard Nixon as a man with certain paranoids, and certain taste of power, but well.. he is not Spiro Agnew neither Donald Rumsfeld.
My god! Donald Rumsfeld mades that Richard Nixon seems a kindergarten child
Some estimates based on demographics trends before the collapse of USSR:
Latvia:
It's rather likely that if the USSR lasts, Latvians will be minority in Latvia by 2012. Maybe around 48-50pc. IOTL they had 52pc in 1989. Russians would be somewhere between 35-37pc and Belarusians and Ukrainians (combined) around 8-9pc.
Estonia
Estonians would still be a majority but their share would go under 60pc, maybe 59pc. IOTL they had 61.5pc in 1989. Russians would be about 33-35%. Ukrainians and Belarusians are around 7pc.
Lithuania:
Pretty much same as it was in 1989 IOTL. Lithuanians would have slightly smaller share, maybe 78-79pc. IOTL they had 79.6 in 1989.
Last edited:
Hope your ill relative gets better quickly, Drew!An illness in the family delayed the production of the new segments; however I've managed to put the rest of 1982 together - which now represents the end of the first decade in the Gumbo-Rumsfeldia TL. The last may be thin in some points, but I think it covers further developments.
No idea at present when 1983 will be available. (Which includes this TL's version of Able Archer).
TTL USA is risking sliding into an authoritharian regime.
There's a small typo, where it is "Estado Nuvo", it should be "Estado Novo".
Not used to seeing so many colors on an American Senate Map...
Though the way purple is so dominant really shows how polarized and fractured all regions have become. And look at Louisiana: out of statewide offices, it has a Dem senator, a CVM senator, and an American Independent governor! Welcome to the future LOL. My other favorite is Idaho: a Libertarian gubernatorial experiment with 2 progressive Democrat senators!
I noticed that as well--of course the Cold War doesn't have to end like OTL, it could end with both the USA and USSR surviving but their differences simply decreasing into permanent detente (hinted at by Ryzhkov's "MBA Communism"); perhaps their relationship could evolve into something like the USA and China's economic partnership in OTL, with crazies on both sides rattling sabres occasionally but the leaderships knowing that both countries need the other to survive, and agreeing to disagree on things like democracy.
Or of course the Soviets could just win outright and the USA could dissolve
I get the feeling that the USA will suffer further economic problems, and push tension with the U.S.S.R to the brink of war whilst burning it's bridges with it's NATO allies due Rummy & Dick being utter bastards.
In the last update we see the French are on better terms with the Soviets than thier US ''allies'' plus the spy scandals and growing oil & gas trade with the Soviets may spell the end of NATO and the EC nations forming their own defense pact.
So IMHO I see the US having a huge post Rumsfeld hangover while the U.S.S.R (whatever back-stabbing power-struggles happen) reforms into a state-capitalist/capitalist-in-all-but-name. With the Cold War rivalry transforming into something like today's US-Russian relations, I.E cold & suspicious but not ''launch-on-warning''.
The complete collapse of the Soviet Union is one of those events that often makes it onto those "Real life things that seem ASB in retrospect" the forum often hosts.
At least having Russia keep the USSR moniker seems more likely. And with the instability in China and a decidedly unfriendly Iran and Pakistan a closer union of the -Stans would probably be acceptable to many people.
At the same time, a second path for socialism in Western Europe must be very enticing for the other Warsaw Pact members and we should hopefully see relations change there. Have Europe meet in the middle: reject neo-liberalism and embrace human rights?
And again (but just personally) it'd be nice if the Baltics were let go. I don't suppose anyone would like to lay odds on that outcome?
At least having Russia keep the USSR moniker seems more likely. And with the instability in China and a decidedly unfriendly Iran and Pakistan a closer union of the -Stans would probably be acceptable to many people.
At the same time, a second path for socialism in Western Europe must be very enticing for the other Warsaw Pact members and we should hopefully see relations change there. Have Europe meet in the middle: reject neo-liberalism and embrace human rights?
And again (but just personally) it'd be nice if the Baltics were let go. I don't suppose anyone would like to lay odds on that outcome?
Eh? Ukraine & Belarus would need to remain to, otherwise the ''U.S.S.R'' would just be the RSFR writ large.
TBH any goverment in Moscow with a collective backbone & having turned a corner on the Breznev stagnation could keep it's borders intact, rumbles of discontent in the Baltics & Caucasus nowithstanding. The Soviet state had survived open revolts & near-civil wars during the 1920/30's at a time when it was much weaker.
I could see the Baltics perhaps becoming a ''special economic zone'' at some point though.
Eh? Ukraine & Belarus would need to remain to, otherwise the ''U.S.S.R'' would just be the RSFR writ large.
TBH any goverment in Moscow with a collective backbone & having turned a corner on the Breznev stagnation could keep it's borders intact, rumbles of discontent in the Baltics & Caucasus nowithstanding. The Soviet state had survived open revolts & near-civil wars during the 1920/30's at a time when it was much weaker.
I could see the Baltics perhaps becoming a ''special economic zone'' at some point though.
Not quibbling with the logic of your outcome, but on one point: Russia plus five current sovereign central Asian states is hardly the RSFR. And I didn't mention Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, or the Caucasus because I'm less certain of the shape of the OTL revolutions in those countries. It's my understanding that Belarus is the most likely to elect to stay in union and that Armenia and Azerbaijan are more likely to try to leave in armed struggle if necessary (this could certainly get interesting with an anti-Soviet Iran and its sizable Azeri population.) But Ukraine/Moldova/Georgia I'm completely in the dark.
And to reiterate, any desire for independent Baltic states is just a personal hope not tied to any amount of likelihood, low or high. The one thing I will say in favor of that outcome is that the independence movements started early there IOTL, but that could just lead to some awful Tienanmen moments ITTL.
One x-factor in all of this is the responsiveness of the Soviet military whenever the crisis occurs. It seems to be riddled with hard-liners at the moment; could be internal conflict keeps Russia busy while at least a few republics slip away.
And afterward I suppose the USSR could technically elevate a few other subdivisions to Republic status if they're feeling the name USSR isn't legitimate enough. The Russian Federation did this IRL, after all.
Whew... Just finished this and Gumbo... AMAZING!!!
Am I the only one that thinks this is building up to the USA abolishing the presidency? Or at minimum severely limiting the executives power?
Am I the only one that thinks this is building up to the USA abolishing the presidency? Or at minimum severely limiting the executives power?
The US is DEFINITELY in for some major political restructuring in my opinion, though I don't think it will go to the point of collapse. If NATO collapses because of poor relations with Europe and other allies treat the US warily, while economic gloom continues, combined with eventual moderation on the USSR's part (?), I could see the US climbing down quite a bit on the military and becoming not quite the global superpower we think of it as.
If the population of Ukraine is given a choice they'd opt to retain the Union, and ''Belarus'' is prtty much Russian. Nationalism there didnt exist in any soild form.
As for Armania & Azerbaijan they're more likely to fight each other both trying to lobby Moscow for support. But a strong fedral goverment wouldnt let things get to that stage to begin with, ditto Moldovia.
Why the Baltics of all places? They prtty much fitted the trope of ''asshole victam'' IMHO.
Anyway armed revolts with tens of thousands involved didnt cause the Soviet state many problems in the 1940's & 1950's. When you add in the demograpic factors the U.S.S.R can hold onto the Baltics if Moscow has any backbone. And frankly whatever the independance movements do, they may have their support undermined if there is an increasd sense of econmic well-being & the Soviet regime isnt imploding due to Gorbachev and his screw ups being butterflied.
At this stage the term ''hardliner'' has little meaning in the U.S.S.R, besides the Red Army didnt meddle in politics so any ''in-fighting'' would be according to Soviet tradition I.E backroom backstabbing & palace coups.
And no-one of the current crop of leaders involved in those (least of all in the armed forces) wants to see secessionism spreading.
On a side note with an Islamic republic inChina, are other faiths new & old spreading/reviving too? I'd think there'd be scope for intra-faith warfare. Which justs adds to the clusterf**k in China...
Why the Baltics of all places? They prtty much fitted the trope of ''asshole victam'' IMHO.
Like I said, my girlfriend is Lithuanian. She got angry when I tried to describe the plot of Zhirinovsky's Russian Empire, and Lithuania does relatively OK in that TL.
They're a plucky people; I'd just be bummed to see them un-free, that's all.
To me the term "hardliner" means the forces in the Soviet Union opposed to MBA Communism; that's how I was using it. You could be right and the "disagreement" will be solved in the age-old back room fashion. But I'm not willing to discount the possibility of something more drastic if events continue to unfold that lend credence to an open power struggle.
If an open power struggle occurs, lots of other outcomes become possible.
John Farson
Banned
Why the Baltics of all places? They prtty much fitted the trope of ''asshole victam'' IMHO.
I wouldn't use the term "asshole victim" when describing Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Even though none of them were democracies, what the USSR did to them in 1939-40 under the auspices of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was shitty by every sense of the word. The only reason that Finland avoided their fate was because they managed to bleed the Red Army enough to make the prospect of conquering and occupying Finland a costly prospect.
If the economy is in good shape, and the regime liberalizes, I could see there being more support (or at least acceptance) in remaining in the USSR, but I could also imagine there still being plenty of latent support for independence.
Firstly, this is all amazing. Bravo.
There was a lot of talk a few pages back about Rumsfeld repealing the 22nd, but I don't think they'd need to, if they have (un)reasonable control over the electoral system. It seems pointless to go through all the trouble of repealing an amendment when they can just switch Cheney and Rumsfeld's jobs for the '88 election.
There was a lot of talk a few pages back about Rumsfeld repealing the 22nd, but I don't think they'd need to, if they have (un)reasonable control over the electoral system. It seems pointless to go through all the trouble of repealing an amendment when they can just switch Cheney and Rumsfeld's jobs for the '88 election.
Some thoughts:
1. Like many others have noted, it seems rather implausible that there would be no leaks, especially about Gavin/Goldwater, unless private organizations/perhaps mercenaries were used.
2. An elected nationwide Attorney General? During midterm elections (ie, entirely separate from the presidential election process)? That would be an extremely radical addition to US politics; a great deal of the President's 'uniqueness' is because his is the only position actually elected nationwide. (You have the Vice-President too, but his election is linked to the President's in a way this wouldn't be...) The Attorney General would become, far and away, at the least the second most powerful person in the country; it would be a rival to the office of the Presidency. This would be a radical, radical shift. I'm curious to see the manner of the Attorney General's election, as well.
3. Considering the entire decade is labeled 'Rumsfeldia', I think Rumsfeld's election in 1984 is assured, and a part of me thinks that, what with the possibility of an Article 5 convention, Rumsfeld may be reelected yet again in 1988. We're nowhere near close to finished.
4. Yeah -- supporting Turkish occupation of Cyprus/Dodecanese islands but trying to aid a capitalist Greek government? The Greek public is going to turn against that shit fast. Considering how stretched-out the US military is at the moment, and how easy it would be for the less-stretched-out USSR to funnel aid to the Greek rebels, and considering likely support from the public, I expect most of Greece -- including Athens -- to fall to the communists at some point in the next several years. A rump-capitalist 'South Greece' may survive for Rumsfeld to point to as a success.
5. The parts of the Soviet Union that were very nationalistic were Georgia and Armenia (Azerbaijan, to my knowledge, not really; Azerbaijani nationalism reawakened in the late '80s as a reaction to Armenian nationalism, but during the USSR's heady days it was dormant, like in Central Asia, and unlike its neighbors to the west), the Baltics (obviously), and Moldova (though Moldovan nationalists generally wanted union with Romania, not actual independence). Other East Slavic states and Muslim minorities were not much less attached to the status quo than the Russians themselves. But Georgia was probably the single most 'anti-Soviet' part of the Union, more so than the Baltics; even in the heart of the Brezhnev period, in 1978, there were riots in Tbilisi.
I do think, based on hints, that the Rumsfeld regime will still be present in the US, in some form, in 1990.
1. Like many others have noted, it seems rather implausible that there would be no leaks, especially about Gavin/Goldwater, unless private organizations/perhaps mercenaries were used.
2. An elected nationwide Attorney General? During midterm elections (ie, entirely separate from the presidential election process)? That would be an extremely radical addition to US politics; a great deal of the President's 'uniqueness' is because his is the only position actually elected nationwide. (You have the Vice-President too, but his election is linked to the President's in a way this wouldn't be...) The Attorney General would become, far and away, at the least the second most powerful person in the country; it would be a rival to the office of the Presidency. This would be a radical, radical shift. I'm curious to see the manner of the Attorney General's election, as well.
3. Considering the entire decade is labeled 'Rumsfeldia', I think Rumsfeld's election in 1984 is assured, and a part of me thinks that, what with the possibility of an Article 5 convention, Rumsfeld may be reelected yet again in 1988. We're nowhere near close to finished.
4. Yeah -- supporting Turkish occupation of Cyprus/Dodecanese islands but trying to aid a capitalist Greek government? The Greek public is going to turn against that shit fast. Considering how stretched-out the US military is at the moment, and how easy it would be for the less-stretched-out USSR to funnel aid to the Greek rebels, and considering likely support from the public, I expect most of Greece -- including Athens -- to fall to the communists at some point in the next several years. A rump-capitalist 'South Greece' may survive for Rumsfeld to point to as a success.
5. The parts of the Soviet Union that were very nationalistic were Georgia and Armenia (Azerbaijan, to my knowledge, not really; Azerbaijani nationalism reawakened in the late '80s as a reaction to Armenian nationalism, but during the USSR's heady days it was dormant, like in Central Asia, and unlike its neighbors to the west), the Baltics (obviously), and Moldova (though Moldovan nationalists generally wanted union with Romania, not actual independence). Other East Slavic states and Muslim minorities were not much less attached to the status quo than the Russians themselves. But Georgia was probably the single most 'anti-Soviet' part of the Union, more so than the Baltics; even in the heart of the Brezhnev period, in 1978, there were riots in Tbilisi.
I do think, based on hints, that the Rumsfeld regime will still be present in the US, in some form, in 1990.
Yes, I can see it falling apart in 1991, if Drew wants to do parallelism like that. I don't see it lasting that far past a 1992 election.
John Farson
Banned
I for one am not convinced that the Rumsfeld regime will last the whole decade. Remember, Agnew lasted less than a year, yet his tenure ultimately influenced the whole of the 1970s, thereby the period could have legitimately been referred to as "Agnewland". I think 1984 is going to be a watershed year in more ways than one.
Regardless how long Rummy actually lasts, his tenure and crimes may very well end up destroying the GOP.
Regardless how long Rummy actually lasts, his tenure and crimes may very well end up destroying the GOP.
I imagine a lot of people's opinions on the former Veep will be related to the success or failures of Agnew York.
- Status