The Death of Russia - TL

Why does everybody think that there'll be mobs and lynchings of Russians and other minorities?
For goodness sake, we've been given glimpses of the future and they point more towards the opposite: that the Russian refugees have been fully accepted by the countries they were sent to due to the massive PR campaign those governments spun.

Also, the Russian Civil War and its conclusion would utterly destroy the Post-War view of the world which fueled much of the horrible foreign policy decisions of Washington, Europe and Co. So it might actually be less likely for them to invade Lybia and the like.
 
What's an event like 4/10 affecting the whole world in general let's just say the media like Simpson's and Friends will be a lot more a mix of escapism / nihilistic overtones
This means the plan for the premiere of Family Guy will be delayed or canceled in 1999. What about Fallout or other pop culture artifacts which could be affected in TTL?

And in the Friends episodes in the TTL, I guess Phoebe, Ross, Chandler, and Rachel will hide or flee Central Perk as they thought the events would happen in the possible episodes which might be aired after the events of April 10th, 1996.
 
And in the Friends episodes in the TTL, I guess Phoebe, Ross, Chandler, and Rachel will hide or flee Central Perk as they thought the events would happen in the possible episodes which might be aired after the events of April 10th, 1996.
Speaking of sitcoms, Seinfeld also just ended at 1998, so we may also see them trying to board up their house, or at least make bed forts for themselves.

Or maybe, it's going to be skirted over, and the show(s) will continue their stories in the aftermath of the chaos, if those are not cancelled altogether; the actual event and its panic will be a sore topic for years to come.
 
Speaking of sitcoms, Seinfeld also just ended at 1998, so we may also see them trying to board up their house, or at least make bed forts for themselves.

Or maybe, it's going to be skirted over, and the show(s) will continue their stories in the aftermath of the chaos, if those are not cancelled altogether; the actual event and its panic will be a sore topic for years to come.
Or in case the possible episodes of Friends will see Phoebe and Ross fighting when they tried to board up Central Perk before they went into the bunker as they heard sirens on the fateful day of April 10th, 1996, or just look at the Family Guy episode when the characters are wearing the protective gear/suits.
 
I think that most TV shows won't address April 10th for a while but mostly because it takes a bit of time for episodes to be filmed or animated and then produced. There also may be some significant delays to production because of the nuclear attacks as well.

Once the production cycle "catches up" with April 10th, the way April 10th is addressed would depend on the tone of the show.

Children's shows are not going to directly talk about April 10th but we could have more "special episodes" that discuss grief, loss, and experiencing difficult times.

The show Arthur didn't discuss 9/11 directly but it did use a fire in the school and the reactions of the children and faculty as an allegory for the emotions people experienced after 9/11. (Funnily enough the episode name is "April 9th" which would have been very ironic if it was a day later).

I could imagine that sitcoms wouldn't address the bombings directly but they would include a somewhat serious storyline about the characters coming together even when everyone is scared shitless.
 
Last edited:
I don't either believe that many shows directly speaks about 4/10. Did many speak even about 9/11 in OTL? There might be some references but hardly many cases where people are speaking about nuclear death of Russia or nuking of places outside of Russia.
 
By that logic, wouldn't that apply to the right-wing as well, especially given the fact that everybody thinking that the Fascists were the ones who shot first as well as the Zass Plan?
Yes and no.

The western far right will undoubtedly shout loud and loud that this is not what they want for their countries.

As it appears from the comments here that the "correct mindset" to be adopted in TTL West is considered to be "we should have let Hitler do his thing in Russia and this would never have happened", coupled with that anyway they are deemed "necessary" to "keep the genocidal left and murderous Russians in check", people will just pretend to believe them.

Especially considering that they will undoubtedly be the ones to organize the vigilante groups described above.

Yes, I know that it is very hypocritical to lean on the extreme right to contain the Russians and the "genocidal left" while insisting on continuing to trade with China "because economy".

No, no one will give a damn, and whoever does will be accused of being a Russian sympathizer.

Especially given the massive civilian death toll in in the West, I wonder how Russian refugees will be treated.

This may also have implications on policy. Will anyone be interested in rebuilding Russia?

(I am reminded, here, of an old TL of mine from AHTG, Tripartite Alliance Earth. In that setting, the surviving world powers were so pissed off by the United States' nuclear genocide that they left the US to rot in despair and civil war. Still not sure about that, but I wonder.)
If you thought Syrian OTL refugees were being mistreated, they will certainly be red carpeted compared to how TTL Russians will be received.

No, nobody will be interested, in any case to recreate the pre-Russian states.

A summary of the TL? And I'm surprised about the Argentine trajectory because I think they didn't have a civil war...
 
Why does everybody think that there'll be mobs and lynchings of Russians and other minorities?
For goodness sake, we've been given glimpses of the future and they point more towards the opposite: that the Russian refugees have been fully accepted by the countries they were sent to due to the massive PR campaign those governments spun.

Also, the Russian Civil War and its conclusion would utterly destroy the Post-War view of the world which fueled much of the horrible foreign policy decisions of Washington, Europe and Co. So it might actually be less likely for them to invade Lybia and the like.
Because real history shows us that anti-minority paranoia often doesn't even need an excuse to trigger itself.

I can't think of a greater trigger for aggressive paranoia than "these people come from a country that destroyed itself in nuclear war after they let their craziest extremists get the levers of power."

I would further add that you cannot simultaneously have both the idea that "the whole world will blame the Russians, and only the Russians, for this disaster" and the idea that no one will try to "take revenge" for such a catastrophe.

Usually, when someone is blamed for something, that someone faces outright rejection by society.
 
Last edited:
Because real history shows us that anti-minority paranoia often doesn't even need an excuse to trigger itself.

I can't think of a greater trigger for aggressive paranoia than "these people come from a country that destroyed itself in nuclear war after they let their craziest extremists get the levers of power."

I would further add that you cannot simultaneously have both the idea that "the whole world will blame the Russians, and only the Russians, for this disaster" and the idea that no one will try to "take revenge" for such a catastrophe.

Usually, when someone is blamed for something, that someone faces outright rejection by society.
While that may be true, ITTL the world, especially the West, undertook a massive propaganda campaign to distance the Russian people fleeing their country from the lunatics in Petrograd and Stalingrad, and, most importantly of all, they have been explicitely stated to have been successful!
So again I ask, why are we talking about mob violence and lynchings when we know for a fact that they won't occur on any significant scale? All this is doing is cluttering up the thread.
 
While that may be true, ITTL the world, especially the West, undertook a massive propaganda campaign to distance the Russian people fleeing their country from the lunatics in Petrograd and Stalingrad, and, most importantly of all, they have been explicitely stated to have been successful!
So again I ask, why are we talking about mob violence and lynchings when we know for a fact that they won't occur on any significant scale? All this is doing is cluttering up the thread.
Because is doubtful that something like this will succeed?

Mainly because this camapign requires huge amounts of resources (which don't exist because the economy has gone down the drain). This has to compete with the remnants of anti-Russian Cold War propaganda that are still floating around, plus ultra-nationalists launching their own anti-Russian propaganda.

The population itself will probably start protesting as they perceive their government to care more about the Russians than for them (and the "best" thing is that it doesn't even have to be true, just need people believe it's true!).

It is doubtful that the government itself has much interest in promoting the acceptance of its hitherto enemies, simply because they have never had such a huge migration crisis and therefore have no experience or idea of what to do about it. We can expect a mismanagement, not for malice of course, but for having no experience.

Remember that in 1990 the obsession with "population is a resource, we need trillions of immigrants to keep the economy running" hadn't even started yet, that's an idea from the 2010s at the earliest. Which means that no one in the government will perceive the Russian refugees as anything other than a burden on public coffers.

And this is leaving out the fact that there are many countries in Russia's immediate vicinity that deeply hate Russians and everything Russian and will certainly not be happy to be inundated by millions of Russians.

Of course, in theory the stars could align and sixes could be drawn all the time to ensure this is a success. But the odds are simply so astronomically low that the very claim that the propaganda campaign was successful is most likely itself part of the in-universe propaganda...
 
Last edited:

Ming777

Monthly Donor
For something different, I wonder if perhaps if an ATL version of Fringe is Produced, the parallel universe version of William Bell's office is in Moscow instead of the World Trade Center.
 
Because is doubtful that something like this will succeed?

Mainly because this camapign requires huge amounts of resources (which don't exist because the economy has gone down the drain). This has to compete with the remnants of anti-Russian Cold War propaganda that are still floating around, plus ultra-nationalists launching their own anti-Russian propaganda.

The population itself will probably start protesting as they perceive their government to care more about the Russians than for them (and the "best" thing is that it doesn't even have to be true, just need people believe it's true!).

It is doubtful that the government itself has much interest in promoting the acceptance of its hitherto enemies, simply because they have never had such a huge migration crisis and therefore have no experience or idea of what to do about it. We can expect a mismanagement, not for malice of course, but for having no experience.

Remember that in 1990 the obsession with "population is a resource, we need trillions of immigrants to keep the economy running" hadn't even started yet, that's an idea from the 2010s at the earliest. Which means that no one in the government will perceive the Russian refugees as anything other than a burden on public coffers.

And this is leaving out the fact that there are many countries in Russia's immediate vicinity that deeply hate Russians and everything Russian and will certainly not be happy to be inundated by millions of Russians.

Of course, in theory the stars could align and sixes could be drawn all the time to ensure this is a success. But the odds are simply so astronomically low that the very claim that the propaganda campaign was successful is most likely itself part of the in-universe propaganda...

Extract from ‘Averting Armageddon: The West in the Second Russian Civil War’ by Frank Wolfowitz

the most populous Slavic state in 2022

The backlash to this immense number of people was strong, especially when the official numbers for each state were released, with almost no countries on the list comfortable with the numbers their countries accepted. The problem was that this sudden immense intake came in around the same time that Western economies realised the scope of the economic downturn the Russian collapse had caused. Widespread fears of nuclear war caused many to sell off their city properties to live in the countryside, causing an implosion in real estate prices and triggering the burst of the housing market bubble, albeit at a mercifully early stage compared to what it could have been. The continuing bad news led Alan Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve, to announce on June 28th 1995 that the world was facing a Second Great Depression. This naturally called into question various governments’ ability to fulfil these refugee obligations. Furthermore there were many who worried that Russian refugees would bring crime and political extremism. Violence against Russian refugees was relatively rare in Europe, though slightly higher in America. The horror of the Russian Civil War had, in some sense, smeared the reputation of Russians as savages, but the victory at Vladivostok and Nemtsov’s electoral win played a huge role in reviving positive perceptions of Russians and making people think of the atrocities in European Russia as due to unrepresentative criminals. While opinions of Russians had imploded during the days of the NSF, the fact that in 1991 the vast majority of Americans had positive opinions of Russians inspired activists that they could turn the perception around.

The controversial strategy to try and ease the public’s discomfort with the number of refugees and immigrants was called ‘The Blonde Strategy’, on the basis that if a young, attractive blonde woman was the face of a Russian refugee, few would believe them to be a threat in either a criminal or political sense. And of course, it was assumed their attractiveness would endear them to the public. To that end, news organisations would often be pushed to use photos of the most attractive young woman they could find at any of the refugee centres, especially if they seemed to be enjoying some piece of Western pop culture (listening to a walkman, chewing bubble gum, etc.) to further make her more relatable like she was the girl next door and to undermine the idea that she had an attachment to the Soviet Union. There is significant evidence that this significantly reduced hostility to the idea of large scale Russian refugee settling, especially among males. One activist at the time described it as ‘altruistically weaponising the male sex drive’. Perhaps the most infamous incident was when Playboy did a charity edition featuring professional Russian models now living in America, with 100% of the money gained to be used to support Russian refugee charities. Though all the women featured had left to live in America since before the war started, many believed (and Playboy may have wanted them to believe for publicity) that some of the women were actual war refugees and that Playboy had been exploiting survivors. Though perhaps the most controversial edition they ever published, it was also their most successful. It was perfect media fodder and was seemingly the only thing in the news in October 1995. Though controversial among progressive activists today, especially in its more tasteless iterations, it is considered one of the most successful campaigns in reducing hostility to migrants in recent history. When one veteran of the campaign was asked about how she felt about the controversy among modern progressives about the campaign, she replied, “Of course the modern activists are angry about it - it actually worked.” Ultimately, the use of this sort of propaganda was instrumental in turning anti-refugee sentiment away from questions about the character of the refugees themselves to claims that other countries weren’t pulling their weight.

On June 15th, the first official shipment of Russian refugees to America arrived at Ellis Island in New York. It was from beginning to end a publicity stunt, with the immigrants (overwhelmingly the most photogenic and primarily children) having been flown to an aircraft carrier offshore before being put on a boat to send them to New York City to falsely imply they had sailed from Kaliningrad. Some of them were wearing ill-fitting clothes to make them resemble 19th century immigrants. But it had a purpose. The purpose was to draw a direct line between the new intake and the majority of Americans who had at least some ancestor who came during the 19th to early 20th century by means of New York City. One new child intake by the name of Thomas Minton would later recall, “From the fields of rural Russia, from the emptiness, the hatred, the fear, the terror, we crossed over the sea. The great Atlantic that divided the past from the future. As we drew to shore, we saw all that we could ever hoped for: the wonder of America. The behemoth of Manhattan, as large as a country. The Statue of Liberty, standing like a guardian of all that was good. The Twin Towers, the immovable bastions of America’s might, as strong and awe-inspiring as she was. It was what we imagined America would be like. For the first time, just by looking at her, we could believe in her. From where we came from, from the terror, we knew we had found deliverance. Even as young children, we understood that this place was different. That there really was a place in this era of evil that people could believe in. The Fascists could not hurt us here. The Communists could not hurt us here. America would protect us. America was here for us. We embraced our country like a scared child embraced their mother and father. A mother who would love you forever, and a father who would always protect you. America to us was not simply the land of the free, it was the hope of the world.” Standing at the harbour of Ellis Island was New York Mayor Rudy Giulliani, greeting them with a simple but heartfelt, “Welcome to America! Welcome to New York City!” Despite the money spent on the fanfare, given that one of the babies on board was future Tech-giant Vitaly Buterin, it’s safe to say that the initial boatload more than repaid the welcome they received. Indeed, like Italians to pizza, it's hard to imagine someone working in the American IT sector without a Russian accent or heritage today.
As you can see here, with the snippet mentioning the year 2022, that they are successful, with no mentions of mobs or lynchings. So the stars do align. And there is no reason to question this particular source or believe it to be in-universe propaganda.
 
One minor effect I think 4/10 is going to have is that, Reagan's "we begin bombing in five minutes" will be looked back at as in even poorer taste than OTL, and probably way fewer people will look at it as just a joke
 
As you can see here, with the snippet mentioning the year 2022, that they are successful, with no mentions of mobs or lynchings. So the stars do align. And there is no reason to question this particular source or believe it to be in-universe propaganda.
Perhaps, while this - much like the averting of New York City being actually nuked by mere seconds - can make for a more bearable timeline, I can see Newt Gingrich having a field day making hay out of this, had Doylist fiat and Watsonian winds went the other way.

Why? Of course - he's Newt Gingrich; while his stunt of shutting down the government may have been somewhat butterflied away with Yeltsin's demise in the coup, he still very much considers himself a maverick that's very willing to raise hell in his arm-twisting of everyone involved with US politics.

Had he successfully stayed in politics - the hell that we know as the OTL 2020's will be pretty inevitable, through one way or another; even if it's not Dubya-Obama-Trump happening, the seed for hyperpartisanship that we saw in the following two decades had been consolidated by that particular senator; As he intended to do what he did for his own personal gain and that of his notoriety, I don't see why Newt would change for the better ITTL.
 
Perhaps, while this - much like the averting of New York City being actually nuked by mere seconds - can make for a more bearable timeline, I can see Newt Gingrich having a field day making hay out of this, had Doylist fiat and Watsonian winds went the other way.

Why? Of course - he's Newt Gingrich; while his stunt of shutting down the government may have been somewhat butterflied away with Yeltsin's demise in the coup, he still very much considers himself a maverick that's very willing to raise hell in his arm-twisting of everyone involved with US politics.

Had he successfully stayed in politics - the hell that we know as the OTL 2020's will be pretty inevitable, through one way or another; even if it's not Dubya-Obama-Trump happening, the seed for hyperpartisanship that we saw in the following two decades had been consolidated by that particular senator; As he intended to do what he did for his own personal gain and that of his notoriety, I don't see why Newt would change for the better ITTL.
Maybe after seeing the possibility of having the far-right become too powerful and launch an atomic genocide someone decides to go full Princip and kills him?

Honestly though I don't think that the world is going to get more polarized than it already is and became OTL, moderates have been given a very good boost in credibility in my opinion by just showing how effective that area of the political spectrum has been since the beginning of society lol
 
Top