Twilight of the Red Tsar
- Thread starter Napoleon IV
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dystopia stalin lives
- Status
Bookmark1995
Banned
Yes. I put a little more than the recommended soy sauce on my chicken.You like living dangerously, don't you?
Yes, I know CalBear isn't that petty.
On further reflection cutting Social Security was a bridge too far. However I would argue that things like rising poverty (particularly for African-Americans) and deaths from lack of healthcare would happen. Remember that we've only seen very little of what happens in the 1970s, and my plan is to have events happen in that decade which makes the global economic situation rough all around the world. For example, while the Yom Kippur War of IOTL has been butterflied away there are still plenty of problems between the Arabs and Israelis that could lead to a similar situation.
I think it has to do with the fact that such a pristine and upbeat age would be boring to write about, since the hook of most stories is to have something to get angry at.
Though I will admit that this forum conversation and fan updates have gone off the walls in terms of plausibility and topics.
You mean with the Islamist taking power in Egypt and so forth?
You mean have some conflict to get invested in; if there's no conflict what's the point? It'd be like that Itchy and Scratchy "retool" in that one Simpsons episode where there's no conflict and it's just boring-ass filler with friendship abound (not that friendship is bad mind you).
I have no problems with negative side effects of America going forward. It's just that the Fall of the Welfare state seems to me to be nothing more than a blatant neo-liberal revenge fantasy where Capitalism causes America to enter into crapsack just because. We are not given a full in-depth analysis on how America's economic prowress has managed to degrade over time, just that fiscal conservatism equals crapsack. Some of the statistics solely rely on how America would perform in 2017 without Social Security, when America would currently be in a boom in the 70'swith virtually no competition on the global market and the opening of numerous markets such as East Europe and China. I could understand it if Napoleon released a couple of updates showing something abroad causing a downfall in the stock market or U.S industries entering a period of stagnation, but there is no events that point to America's poor performance yet and it's just another corporate dystopia. It's repeatedly implied that the upcoming millennial generation will hate their parents for what they imply to be ruining their lives and will turn full Syndicalist with possible racial revolution over the poverty of African Americans. I'm not trying to suggest America having a pure golden age with absolutely no issues in the land of the free. I just want real and plausible explanations over how our society would go forward in this day and age with both sides of the political spectrum having wins and losses as American politics and society adjust to the aftermath of Stalin's regime of Terror. Congressman's NDCR is a great example of this as it shows how the right won the culture war, but the left won economics with state healthcare and greater presence of socialism within the American economy.
No your posts seem to have the best of quality in terms of writing. You have managed to do a good job at showing the 180 attitude of Americans towards Judaism after the revelation of two holocausts and how the religion as a whole is rebuilding after its downfall in Eurasia. The Soviet foreign affairs parts are good in that the show how the how world would turn form the USSR in the face of Stalin's descent into utter madness that would make North Korea seem like Switzerland in comparison. The only problem I have with is that George H.W Bush is the American UN ambassador as the rise of Conservatism in the 1960's TTL and the period of Republican dominance would insure that he would be elected Senator instead of failing thanks to the downfall of the Dixiecrats and the attack on Liberals with Texas going hard against them as one of the more conservative states of America.
No I mean like a cause that you can 'For' or 'oppose' on an ideological or ethic stand point.
Well I will admit your updates seem cynical for the sake of cynicism
Well a plausible reason I gave was that with the World Economy nearly centered around the USA a generation earlier, a recession there would create economic ripple effects that are more easily felt elsewhere.
Bookmark1995
Banned
How do you believe I'm being cynical?
Bush was an extremely clever foreign policy figure, so I figured he would get the job sooner.
Being the UN representative though is a downgrade from being a U.S Senator. Congressman and governors like Nikki Haley usually get the job AFTER they finish their terms in office. H.W became a U.N ambassador OTL solely because of the fact that he lost his seat in the House after an unsuccessful run for Senator and Nixon decided to reward him for loyalty since it was Nixon's idea for Bush to run for Senate in the first place. Bush didn't even have a chance to shine in foreign policy until his UN post so there would be no reason to give him the job besides party loyalty. So it would make for more sense if he was a Senator rather than ambassador. After all Bush did run three times in the 60's and would most surely win TTL.
I mean it reflects the cynical dystopia's of works like "Watchmen" and such
I have to agree with Kaiser Chris. This is a really well-written TL, and I appreciate not only the grim but interesting world Napoleon has created but also the many contributions to it by posters, especially concerning Judaism and Russia's future which are VERY relevant to this TL. But all this constant fear-mongering about a right wing dystopia are getting a little overblown. Yes, there would be a backlash, and it may make the US a slightly less good place to live. But going on to say that this would result in the destruction of popular Welfare programs, ridiculously massive growth in poverty and a weird mainstream adoption of Randism doesn't make any sense and detracts from the TL, especially with how many updates have been dedicated to it. Again, some of this is fine, but it's become the focus of the TL and a lot of it doesn't make any sense- why would America shoot itself in the foot for no reason? How are Welfare programs tied at all to the Soviet Union, who have been practicing the opposite of Welfare Programs? And why would an America outraged by Godless Communism turn to Objectivism?
I'm not saying we have to cut out these ideas entirely, but do we really need to indulge in these overblown fears of conservatism destroying America in a TL about one madman's insanity continuing and its effects? Especially since as Kaiser Chris pointed out, this is going to be basically another 1950s for the American economy, with opening markets and not much competition.
I'm not saying we have to cut out these ideas entirely, but do we really need to indulge in these overblown fears of conservatism destroying America in a TL about one madman's insanity continuing and its effects? Especially since as Kaiser Chris pointed out, this is going to be basically another 1950s for the American economy, with opening markets and not much competition.
Bookmark1995
Banned
I wonder if there is going to be another stereotype regarding the Soviets: complete, fucking cowards.
The USSR has a horrific reputation as a nation that will back-stab its people and its allies. They back-stabbed the Jews, they back-stabbed the Baltics, they back-stabbed the Old Bolsheviks, they back-stabbed the Caucasus peoples, they back-stabbed the Chinese, etc.
But despite all their bluster, they acted like complete pussies when called to stand up to the US, their so-called true enemy. When Manchuria was bombed, the Soviets backed down rather easily. Despite Mao's stupidity, he had every right to pissed at Stalin's cowardice. When the Europeans invaded Egypt, the so-called opponents of imperialism left Nasser hanging.
I have this head canon where Ho Chi Minh's break with the Soviets was not just because of his disgust with the Soviets, and the damage the Sino-Soviet War did to his war effort, but because he recognized that the Soviets could not be counted on to stand up to the capitalist powers. I also believe the Castro brothers were also furious at the Soviet's lack of will against the West.
The fact that the Soviets were gutless wimps is contemptible enough, but the fact that they punched their own people in the throat more often they did to their so-called enemies is beyond disgusting.
The USSR has a horrific reputation as a nation that will back-stab its people and its allies. They back-stabbed the Jews, they back-stabbed the Baltics, they back-stabbed the Old Bolsheviks, they back-stabbed the Caucasus peoples, they back-stabbed the Chinese, etc.
But despite all their bluster, they acted like complete pussies when called to stand up to the US, their so-called true enemy. When Manchuria was bombed, the Soviets backed down rather easily. Despite Mao's stupidity, he had every right to pissed at Stalin's cowardice. When the Europeans invaded Egypt, the so-called opponents of imperialism left Nasser hanging.
I have this head canon where Ho Chi Minh's break with the Soviets was not just because of his disgust with the Soviets, and the damage the Sino-Soviet War did to his war effort, but because he recognized that the Soviets could not be counted on to stand up to the capitalist powers. I also believe the Castro brothers were also furious at the Soviet's lack of will against the West.
The fact that the Soviets were gutless wimps is contemptible enough, but the fact that they punched their own people in the throat more often they did to their so-called enemies is beyond disgusting.
Last edited:
The Offensive of Victory
The Offensive of Victory
Excerpt from The Soviet Civil War by Joshua Reddings
In February 1968 the Soviets decided to march on Moscow. Propaganda proudly declared this “the Offensive of Victory”, and the Soviets devoted a huge chunk of their resources to it. Over two million men, 5000 tanks, and 7000 aircraft were put on the line. The timing of the attack proved fortuitous for the Soviets, since the rebels were in the midst of reorganizing their military. Most of the military, particularly the officer class, had sided with the Soviets, which created leadership and training problems in the rebel armies. Over the first 5 months of the war this had proved to be a major albatross across the rebels’ neck. The Soviets managed to win battle after battle, and by February the city of Voronezh, about 330 miles from Moscow, was in Soviet hands.
The offensive started off slow. The rebels proved to be a much tougher enemy than the Soviets had anticipated, and it took a month and a half to advance to the town of Yelets, about 90 miles from Voronezh. But at Yelets the Soviets won one of the biggest victories of the war. On March 20th the worn-out and battered 5th and 6th Armies decided to halt and reorganize. Rebel general Ivan Veremei decided to use this opportunity to launch a counterattack. Veremei had been promoted following the August Revolution, and wanted an opportunity to prove himself further. From March 21st-28th the rebel armies pounded the Soviets, and the Soviet center seemed to give way. Veremei didn’t notice that, like the Romans at Cannae, his men were moving into a pincer. On April 1st that pincer slammed shut. Aided by fresh troops the Soviets cut through the rebel lines and quickly surrounded about 70,000 men. In a panic Veremei threw troops at the Soviets in an attempt to break through and rescue the trapped men, but this failed. With a whole army’s worth of men lost the rebels were forced to retreat in disarray. Using the tactics of deep battle, the Soviets were able to push to the city of Tula by the beginning of May, leaving them only a little more than 100 miles from Moscow.
Excerpt from A History of Atomic Warfare by Jack Bridges
Throughout May and June, the rebels kept losing and giving ground around Moscow. By June 15th the Soviets were at Serpukhov, about 60 miles from Moscow. By this point the CNS was desperate. The rebel armies were exhausted and beaten down, barely holding the line. It seemed that Moscow’s only hope was the roughly 200,000 troops from the east, but those wouldn't arrive for another 3 weeks. It was at this time that the CNS began considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons. A large scale nuclear attack could seriously damage the Soviet armies, giving Moscow valuable time. But there were many risks. The foremost of these was the fear that things could devolve into a general nuclear war. Both sides had enough nuclear weapons to destroy each other, so such a war would mean the end of the Russian state. It was Kashnikov who convinced the CNS to use tactical nukes. As he put it “If we do not use nuclear weapons we shall lose Moscow, and losing Moscow is a physical and morale blow that we cannot recover from. If death is our lot either way, then I say that we take the Soviet Union with us!”
The nuclear attack was launched on June 20th. 10 nuclear-tipped Scud B missiles, with payloads ranging from 5 to 20 kilotons, were launched at various points along the Soviet lines. The missiles’ effect was incredible. One Soviet soldier recalled that “For an instant I was blinded by a flash of light; I thought to myself “Is this the end of the world?” As my sight came back I gazed at a scene of horror. All around men lay dead or horribly burned, with their uniforms fused to their bodies. Our tanks and artillery had been ripped apart and scattered like a child’s toys on the floor.” While the damage had been minimized by the fact that the Soviets anticipated such an event, and structured their armies accordingly, it was still tremendous. Around 100,000 soldiers were killed, along with an untold number of civilians. Despite Soviet preparations the army’s medical system was completely overwhelmed with wounded, to the point where all civilians were turned away and left to die.
News of the attack quickly reached Stalingrad, where the ruling troika gathered to determine what to do next. Since it was unclear if the attack was localized or if it was the start of a general nuclear strike a decision had to be made quickly. Ustinov wanted to strike and use as many nukes as possible. Thankfully for the world Kulakov and Polyansky disagreed. Both felt that the Soviets were too close to victory to risk escalating the conflict, particularly if the rebels only meant to use nuclear weapons in a tactical setting. The previous use of nuclear weapons by both the US and the USSR in Asia had also done a lot to influence nuclear strategy. The idea had developed that it was possible to use nuclear weapons in a tactical setting, and that nukes were just another level of escalation rather than being a game-ending move. This view was challenged by many, but Kulakov and Polyansky were willing to accept it. Instead the Soviets decided to respond with a tactical nuclear strike of their own. 8 nuclear missiles were detonated around Moscow, to much the same effect as the rebels’ attack.
Although the destruction of Russia had been avoided it proved impossible to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. Throughout the rest of the Soviet Civil War tactical nuclear weapons were used with every major offensive. In the rest of the world the Russian experience confirmed the idea of nukes as a tactical element, something which would prove to have a devastating impact in both the Arab-Israeli and India-Pakistan wars.
Last edited:
Puzzle
Donor
There's barely any land there anyway, they can't really afford to have bits irradiated. Of course if the West Bank is turned into a cinder maybe people will stop fighting over it.
Bookmark1995
Banned
Or at the very least, the devastating effect of nuclear war would convince both sides to work toward peace.
It's important to note that not all nuclear strikes lead to fallout. Only surface bursts create fallout, because they suck up the dirt and other materials on the ground, irradiate them, and fling them everywhere. The fallout from an airburst gets diffused and decayed in the atmosphere before it hits the surface, so there's very little radiation. So an airburst over the West Bank wouldn't leave the area uninhabitable for a long period of time, but a surface burst certainly would.
- Status