Twilight of the Red Tsar
- Thread starter Napoleon IV
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dystopia stalin lives
- Status
And the idea of the Allied leadership killed him to stop Patton from starting a war may gain much more support.
That, I doubt, Patton was a war hero, and if that had gotten out, I think 3rd Army would've taken it poorly. More likely NKVD get another body added to their toll.
Bookmark1995
Banned
Shame, obviously. Anger, definitely. Now that the civil war has broken out, and a lot of the USSR's dirty secrets are out in the open, I think she has been able to flee Russia.
One thing I can imagine her doing is paying a visit to Yad Vashem, as a form of atonement. Maybe laying flowers at a memorial built to her father's victims.
I also imagine her memoirs, even more so, becoming instant best sellers.
I think everybody who said the Soviets couldn't be trusted is going to gain renown.
I imagine George Orwell being even more celebrated, albeit by right-wingers who forget he fought alongside Spanish syndicalists, with Animal Farm being one of the best selling books ever. Because ITTL, he was far more prescient then ever.
Last edited:
Bookmark1995
Banned
I don't think a future president would intervene against Apartheid. A post-1968 administration, however, would eventually speak out/push for sanctions against the racist system.
Without a Soviet monstrosity, keeping the South Africans as allies without them implementing multiracial democracy will become increasingly hated.
A future Republican president could alienate black voters by continuing Cold War relations.
Last edited:
Lost Freeway
Banned
Didn't the US do that3 IOTL?-privately supporting the South African government while publicly pressuring them to reform.
Bookmark1995
Banned
Yes, but the "support" part died down as the Cold War ended. Even before that point, sanctions had been enacted, even overriding Reagan's veto.
Even if the US government still drags its feet, I imagine the anti-apartheid movement being a major force in the ITTL 1970s.
The thing is - in this story the Cold War hasn't ended. On the contrary, it's more dangerous than ever - the Soviet Union is a nuclear-armed government fighting for its existence. It's a cornered animal, and it has a significant nuclear arsenal. This is terrifying to anyone sane, far scarier than a status quo where the Soviet Union is a highly unpleasant but stable regime which is unlikely to use its nuclear weapons on the rest of the world. While this situation lasts, Cold War mentality, driven fundamentally by fear of communism, isn't going anywhere.
Now that you bring it up, how many nuclear silos did the Soviet Union have in Central Asia around this time anyway, because that will determine how much of Europe and Siberia will be reduced to a nuclear wasteland
Bookmark1995
Banned
Is Kulakov -and the other embattled Soviet leaders- really so mad as to unleash nukes to prolong the inevitable? The US could easily wipe them off the map.
Bookmark1995
Banned
In doing so, they would only solidify themselves as the most monstrous force to walk the Earth. Especially if they dropped it on their own population.
But then again, I believe if Stalin had lived long enough ITTL, he would have witnessed a revolt break out across Eastern Europe. I believe his response would have been to nuke the rebelling country.
Bookmark1995
Banned
Maybe.
Here's what I think would the POD: Stalin quits smoking after his stroke, meaning he is able to live a few years longer.
By 1959, however, the conditions in the Eastern Europe become intolerable, to the point where hatred of Russia exceeds the fear of death and people start revolting.
The revolt starts in Hungary, where rioters and mutinying soldiers manage to takeover Hungary. Like with China, send sends his thugs, but angry Hungarians end up overwhelming, if not defeating, Soviets.
Stalin, in his senile, paranoid, fury, drops an H-bomb on Budapest, and smaller bombs on Drebecen and Pec. The revolt is instantly annihilated, but the result is dramatic.
Around the world, millions cry out in anger and fury. In Eastern Europe, even Soviet collaborators abandon their hammers and sickles.
Nixon, joined by NATO Allies, launches a retaliatory strike on the city of Sevastopol, and orders the USSR's immediate withdrawal from Eastern Europe, at the risk of nuclear war.
Stalin, not used to getting a black eye, suffers another severe stroke and goes into a coma. As usual, his subordinates do nothing for several days, but meanwhile, the whole Eastern block is going up in revolt.
By the time Stalin wakes up, and is told the Soviet soldiers are defecting, he goes into another rage, and orders the death of not only his subordinates, but his doctors, who he blames for the revolt. But without doctors or subordinates to keep watch over him, he ends dying, and the whole Soviet Union is thrown into succession crisis with all of Stalin's successors dead. On one side are those who want to retaliate against the West and reconquer Eastern Europe. On the other side are those who want to prevent nuclear Armageddon. The result is civil war.
What do you think?
Don't worry, Stalin would die before he could nuke Lithuania.
Would make for the most sense since that guy had been on the mental for some time thanks to the stresses of Second World War.
I think it's the weakest spot in your speculation. ITTL, there is no nuclear taboo - the U.S. have nuked Chinese cities during the Korean War, and what's more important, the Soviets did so, too, with the West remaining silent. Technically, the U.S. and their allies still abide by the Yalta/Potsdam agreements and will not go to war against Stalin pacifying his sphere of influence with nukes. There will be a massive outcry, a stand-off in the UN Security Council (and even more so in the Assembly General, especially given that ITTL the USSR doesn't care about acquiring the post-colonial nations to its cause, and there are too few of them anyway), a military buildup on the NATO/Soviet bloc border, probably a wave of anti-Soviet sanctions (e.g. sanctions against non-aligned nations trading with the USSR, since direct trade between the USSR and the free world is negligible by that moment) possibly a new wave of moral panic and calls to even harsher measures to root out the communist agents, but it won't be an all-out war since the outset. I don't say that at least some of these measures can never lead to a hot war, though.
Bookmark1995
Banned
Yeah, now that I think about it, the nuking of Budapest wouldn't lead to a nuclear strike by the US.
But more importantly, do you think it could lead to a quicker collapse of the Eastern bloc, because it would drive other Eastern European states to abandon Communism in anger?
- Status