Tellus
Banned
Largely for propaganda reasons and to grant more legitimacy to the Internationale, the Soviets chose from the onset of the revolution to break down the former Russian Empire - which they sought as their initial territory - in a series of new states (SSRs) based largely on largely ethnic borders. Their actual autonomy was laughable, and all the Soviet Union was of course governed from Moscow from the early days to the last.
But the legal and theorical independence granted to all these new states in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the West, gave them all the authority they needed to successfully secede from the Soviet Union when it was crumbling.
Now, I'm not suggesting that Moscow would directly annex eastern Europe after WW2, of course, but that all SSRs would remain into a single country. The name Soviet Union could be retained (In a more "federal" sense), but of course "USSR" would never be used.
Since the Internationale per se never had much success beyond the reach of the Red Armies, I'm thinking it's entirely possible that the first major consequences of this POD would only be seen in the late 80s. As the Soviet satellites in Europe denounce their Warsaw Pact membership, Moscow would retain full legal and military rights over all historical Russia, including Central Asia, the Caucasus, Ukraine, Belarus, and assuming they were annexed outright instead of being admitted as SSRs, the Baltic States.
I'm wondering two things; do you agree with my asessment that this POD would likely only have major impacts after the collapse of the wall, and assuming it does, do you think Moscow would manage in the context of the 90s to continue to assert it's authority over all the country; or would they face multiple "Chechenyas" on a scale too great to be be able to retain control? Would the people of the various SSRs, if they had never enjoyed theorical independence, even consider the fall of communism as a good time to break centuries-long ties with Russia? Or would we see a Russian Federation today with the borders of June 21, 1941?
But the legal and theorical independence granted to all these new states in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the West, gave them all the authority they needed to successfully secede from the Soviet Union when it was crumbling.
Now, I'm not suggesting that Moscow would directly annex eastern Europe after WW2, of course, but that all SSRs would remain into a single country. The name Soviet Union could be retained (In a more "federal" sense), but of course "USSR" would never be used.
Since the Internationale per se never had much success beyond the reach of the Red Armies, I'm thinking it's entirely possible that the first major consequences of this POD would only be seen in the late 80s. As the Soviet satellites in Europe denounce their Warsaw Pact membership, Moscow would retain full legal and military rights over all historical Russia, including Central Asia, the Caucasus, Ukraine, Belarus, and assuming they were annexed outright instead of being admitted as SSRs, the Baltic States.
I'm wondering two things; do you agree with my asessment that this POD would likely only have major impacts after the collapse of the wall, and assuming it does, do you think Moscow would manage in the context of the 90s to continue to assert it's authority over all the country; or would they face multiple "Chechenyas" on a scale too great to be be able to retain control? Would the people of the various SSRs, if they had never enjoyed theorical independence, even consider the fall of communism as a good time to break centuries-long ties with Russia? Or would we see a Russian Federation today with the borders of June 21, 1941?