Twilight of the Red Tsar

[Lalli]

What are the exiled royals of former Warsaw Pact states doing right now? Have there been any attempts of restoration?

Them have probably better chances when fall of former monarchies is only two decades. Romania might be quiet easy if government just give chance. And in OTL last king of Bulgaria was while prime minister of Bulgaria on 2000's so it not be impossible to see restorations in Bulgaria and Romania.

One intresting ISOT would be United States from AWOLAWOT. President Disney's feelings over Second Holocaust might be bit mixed.

 

[chankljp]

He'll just say that the West is making it up. He was absolutely knee-deep in Stalin-apologism for years - it takes a lot for people to admit the thing they argued and cared about passionately in public for decades was not only wrong, but more wrong than he could have ever imagined. Human beings don't work like that - human beings would rather win the argument and still be wrong than admit their mistakes.

Can he say that with Stalin dropping nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons on the Middle Kingdom for standing up to the USSR and the mess over Korea? Then Stalin destroyed a Communist Ally over a disparagement?

Or the fact the Russians are nuking each other in a second civil war?

"Hey! Mao shot down Stalin's jet, Stalin had to respond! And who are we to question Stalin's use of nuclear weapons while we first dropped them on Japan and then Korea?"

"That Civil War? All a bunch of Fascist subversives. Just look at [generic corrupt CNS guy]! Look at the destruction these so called freedom fighters brought to Russia! People had enough to eat during Stalin. Now? The whole country is in ruins!"

Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

So Stalin had the right to drop smallpox onto the Chinese population (causing the Smallpox Epidemic), and nuking every Chinese city he found find? And the reason for tens of millions of Chinese fleeing.

It is Stalin's fault for what happen to Korea.

The USSR did not helping Egypt, being the reason for Egypt becoming a insane, Middle Age, Muslim state that is running out of population.

(Really, I what someone like this to meet a survivor of the Second Holocaust, or a Chinese person who survived the Sino-Soviet War, and see what happens.)

Speaking from personal experience, during my late middle and high school days I had engaged in some class A 'doublethink' by passionately holding onto two contradictory political views for years. For me personally, it was not until one day I had a 'Road to Damascus' moment and recognise that inherent contradiction in my views, leading to me spending weeks thinking things over and soul searching, until I had to make a painful decision on settling and committing to one of those views while abandoning the other.

For me, not only was the experience very painful on a personal level (I never quite got that 'ideological crusader' flame back in me ever again), in hindsight, I could have easily have gone off in either direction.

I think that Richard Dawkins' article "Sadly, an Honest Creationist", written in 2001 about the story of Kurt Wise really captures what I am talking about.

From the article:

All the more interesting, then, to read his personal testimony in In Six Days. [....] He begins with his childhood ambition. Where other boys wanted to be astronauts or firemen, the young Kurt touchingly dreamed of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard and teaching science at a major university. He achieved the first part of his goal, but became increasingly uneasy as his scientific learning conflicted with his religious faith. When he could bear the strain no longer, he clinched the matter with a Bible and a pair of scissors. He went right through from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific worldview were true. At the end of this exercise, there was so little left of his Bible that

. . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.​

[....]

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.​

[....]

Kurt Wise [....] volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink.

I think that ITTL, while there will be lots of disillusioned communists and Stalinists that turn away from their former ideology, there will equally be a large number of die-hards who will go full National Bolshevism.

And if you want to be very, very, very cynical about it.... Stalin's policies has victimised the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, the Jews, and the Chinese... Not Blacks. So the entire 'No communist ever forced me to sit in the back of the bus!' thing is still 100% true. Of course, this will be a view that gets utterly denounced by the mainstream Civil Rights Movement, I can see of the most radical elements holding such a view....

Not going into RL politics here, but I think we can see from current day examples, people across the political spectrum seem to have this troubling tendency to justify politically motivated violence, persecution, and even outright atrocities, as long as it is done by their side against the 'other', even if it violates everything that they claim to believe in...

 

[Sorairo]

President Disney's feelings over Second Holocaust might be bit mixed.

There is virtually no evidence that Disney was anti-Semitic, or any other kind of racist, especially by contemporary standards. It's just a myth people like saying because of the contrast of Disney's public image and omnipresence with the salaciousness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney#Personality_and_reputation

Incidentally, Disney's going to become an even bigger folk hero ITTL, owing to his own battles with Communists.

 

[Neoteros]

And if you want to be very, very, very cynical about it.... Stalin's policies has victimised the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, the Jews, and the Chinese... Not Blacks. So the entire 'No communist ever forced me to sit in the back of the bus!' thing is still 100% true. Of course, this will be a view that gets utterly denounced by the mainstream Civil Rights Movement, I can see of the most radical elements holding such a view...

It's very likely. Many black movements descended from or influenced by the Nation of Islam are openly and unabashedly anti-Semitic, homophobic, misogynistic and all around racist, even in OTL. An alternate "Nation of Islam" would probably make the average white supremacist organization seem politically correct, especially if the civil rights struggle is delayed or is defeated.

 

[Lost Freeway]

It's very likely. Many black movements descended from or influenced by the Nation of Islam are openly and unabashedly anti-Semitic, homophobic, misogynistic and all around racist, even in OTL. An alternate "Nation of Islam" would probably make the average white supremacist organization seem politically correct, especially if the civil rights struggle is delayed or is defeated.

Uhhh...

Merry Christmas everyone:

Civil Rights​

Excerpt from The Civil Rights Movement by Edward Jones​

President Nixon had promised to make civil rights a priority of his second term, however for the first two years of his term foreign policy matters took up most of his time[1].That all changed in 1962, with James Meredith’s fight. Meredith, a black man, applied to the University of Mississippi, which at the time was segregated. After being rejected Meredith filed suit, claiming that the school had only rejected him because of his race. Even after he won the case Governor Ross Barnett refused to let him in, promising “no school will be integrated in Mississippi while I am your Governor[2].” At this point Nixon stepped in, ordering Attorney General William P. Rogers[3] to send US Marshals to attend Meredith’s registration and arrival[4]. Nixon took the opportunity to focus on Civil Rights, and on January 1st, 1963 he delivered his famous “Civil Rights Address.” In the speech Nixon declared that “Civil Rights is not just a legal issue, it is a moral issue. Since the days of President Lincoln the American Negro, while free, has faced a system designed to deny them their basic humanity. All thinking men recognize that this system is wrong, and that change must come through.” This was the most wide-ranging speech on Civil Rights by a President up to this point, and it was followed by Nixon’s proposed Civil Rights Act.

Excerpt from The Struggle for Civil Rights by Meredith Rogers​

Almost immediately after the Civil Rights Act reached the House it faced a challenge. Howard Smith, the segregationist chairman of the Rules Committee, decided to keep the bill bottled up forever. Nixon was furious, calling Smith “that cocksucker” and at one point even asking FBI Director Hoover to dig up dirt on him. The solution to the problem came when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Emanuel Celler trying to gather a petition to discharge the bill from the Rules Committee. This rarely used practice required the majority of Representatives to back it; this process took until after the 1963 winter recess, when it was clear that public opinion in the North was behind the bill. Smith relented, and the bill passed the House 290-130[5].

The bill then passed to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Like the House Rules Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee was chaired by an ardent segregationist: James Eastland of Mississippi. To get the bill to the Senate floor Nixon met with Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Johnson informed Nixon that there was nothing he could do. This was false, and Johnson knew it. According to many of his aides Johnson was in the middle of his own run for President, and didn’t want to give the Republicans a major legislative success before the election or face angry Southern Democrats. Nixon was eventually able to get a bill passed, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was very weak, mostly concerned with voting rights and ending discrimination based on national origin[6].

Excerpt from The Encyclopedia of US Elections​

Election of 1964: The election of 1964 was the 45th Presidential election in US history. Incumbent President Richard Nixon was unable to run due to term limits, leaving the Republican field wide open. The two main contenders that emerged were Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York and Senate Minority Leader William Knowland of California[7]. Rockefeller faced major challenges due to his divorce and remarriage to Margarita “Happy” Murphy, which cost him the support of social conservatives. As a result, Knowland was able to win the nomination, choosing Pennsylvania Governor William Scranton as his running mate. On the Democratic side the main contenders were Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson and Senator John F. Kennedy, with Governor George Wallace of Alabama winning several Southern states. Johnson won a narrow victory, and in a surprising twist chose Kennedy as his running mate. The main issues of the general election were the economy, Civil Rights, and foreign affairs. Despite his personal distaste for President Nixon[8] Knowland was able to use the President’s success in the economy and foreign policy to his advantage, winning the election 310 electoral votes to Johnson’s 228.

Excerpt from Knowland by Edmund Morris​

Although Knowland was a conservative he was strongly in favor of Civil Rights, even breaking into tears after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 due to how weak the law was. As such, it was only natural that he would pick up where Nixon had left off. By the end of 1965 Knowland felt ready, and a bill was submitted to Congress, where it again passed the House. In the weeks leading up to it entering the Senate Knowland met with Johnson to discuss how to get the bill passed the Judiciary Committee. Johnson eventually agreed to work with Knowland. Several explanations have been proposed for this. Some argue that Johnson’s friendship with Knowland allowed the latter to better influence him, while others argue that Johnson was no longer in election mode, and thus was willing to work with the Republicans. Whatever the reason Johnson proposed a novel tactic: he waived a second reading of the bill, then used the absence of precedent for a bill’s second reading not immediately following the first to argue that the bill should be sent to the floor for debate[9]. Southern Senators, led by Strom Thurmond, immediately started a filibuster. This forced the bill’s defenders to draft a compromise bill, and after some horse trading they were able to break the filibuster on May 5th, 1966. The Civil Rights Act of 1966 passed the Senate shortly thereafter and was signed into law by President Knowland on May 22nd.

[1] This is unsurprising. Nixon far preferred dealing with foreign affairs to dealing with domestic policy.
[2] Barnett said this IOTL as well.
[3] Rogers was Eisenhower's last AG IOTL, and a close associate of Nixon's.
[4] There were negotiations to send the Marshals in IOTL between Kennedy and Governor Barnett. ITTL Nixon doesn't negotiate, in part because he doesn't have to worry about the opinion of Southern Democrats.
[5] This happened IOTL as well.
[6] Ending discrimination based on national origin had been one of the goals of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, although it ultimately didn't happen during that bill.
[7] IOTL Knowland ran for (and lost) Governor of California in 1958, in part so that he could build a political machine there to deny Nixon the Presidency. With Nixon as President Knowland elects to stay in the Senate ITTL.
[8] Distaste is a mild way of putting it. Nixon and Knowland despised each other and fought for control of the California GOP.
[9] IOTL this is how Mike Mansfield got the Civil Rights Act passed the Judiciary Committee.

 

[DumbersTC]

Here's another update, It's about Malaysia. I was originally going to post this yesterday for Malaysia's independence day but I didn't get the permission to post until now. but still enjoy.

Merdeka​

Excerpt from Red Star Over Malaya: the Malayan Emergency by Cheah Boon Kheng​

Before the Japanese Invasion of Malaya, the Malayan Communist Party (Parti Komunis Malaya/馬來亞共產黨)were already agitating for independence from British rule and it's replacement with a socialist state. Geopolitical developements that have occured however meant that the Malayan Communist Party made an agreement with the British to temporarily withhold their hostilities against them in exchange for training and support for the Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army (Tentera Anti-Jepun Rakyat Malaya/馬來亞人民抗日軍). After the Japanese surrender and the British returned to Malaya, The Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army were disbanded and it's members to surrender their arms and return home but they didn't return all their weapons and the Malayan Communist Party, now led by Chin Peng, instead waged a guerilla war against the British to achieve their goals.

Initially, The Malayan Communist Party instigated strikes at mines and plantations, which were the backbone of the economy. but that changes with the Sungai Siput incident which three European managers were killed by the communist rebels. After the incident, The government declared an emergency which would last until 1960 when the lack of support from both the Soviet Union and the PRC due to the Sino-Soviet war, and the Commonwealth's successful counter-insurgency tactics such as strategic relocation of the ethnic Chinese to "New Villages"(Kampung Baru/新村) and winning hearts and minds. The revelation about the Second Holocaust also factors in the splintering and the eventual collapse of the Malayan Communist Party as members become disillusioned about Marxism-Leninism as a result with some leaving to form the Malayan Syndicalist Party(Parti Syndikal Malaya/马来亚综合党) and continuing to fight a guerilla war while others who didn't join the said party surrendering themselves to the Commonwealth.

Excerpt from The History of the Malayan Penisula by Khoo Kay Kim​

The beginnings of the Federation of Malaya traces back to the creation of a Malayan Union( Kesatuan Melayu/馬來亞聯盟) by the British in 1946 that combines the polities of the Federated Malay States, the Unfederated Malay States, and the crown colony of the Straits Setllements into a one government to simplify administration but the Union was met with opposition by the ethnic Malays due to the reduction of the power of the sultans and the granting of citizenship to immigrants. As a result, the Malayan Union was dissolved and replaced with the current Federation of Malaya, which still continues to exist to this day.

Then, a delicate proposal made by the British to merge the Federation of Malaya with the then-crown colonies of Sarawak, Singapore, and North Borneo into a single federal country called "Malaysia". The proposal was met with hostility from Sarawak and North Borneo as well due to the perception that it is a form of "Neocolonialism" and from neighboring countries such as the Philippines, who have claims on Sabah as Sulu's successor state. A.Z Azhari proposed for a North Borneo Federation (Persekutuan Kalimantan Utara/北婆羅洲聯邦ு) as an alternate for the proposed federation of Malaysia consisting of Sabah, Sarawak, and Brunei which unfortunately gains traction among the populace and the political parties in that area. Also, the economical differences between Borneo and Malaya are quite large and the Bruneian Sultan, though he actually supported joining the proposed federation[1], wouldn't want to lose his oil income, and fears from the Malayan side that the Chinese would dominate the new federation are the factors that eventually caused the proposed federation of Malaysia to fail. But the proposal also received support from Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

Due to the multitude of opposition to the federation and the fading communist threat as the Soviet Union crash and burn, the British reluctantly agreed to the proposal of A.M Azhari,[2] though he surprisingly promised that he will be open for a future union with Malaya if the people of North Borneo federation wanted it in order to assure them. A.M Azhari then declared the independence of the North Borneo Federation with its capital at Brunei Town ( now Bandar Brunei) and him as the first Prime Minister under the Bruneian Sultan. and the new federation then signed the Manila Accord with the Philippines, Indonesia,Singapore, and Malaya to clarify them that the federation would not prejudice both the claim or any right thereunder by the Philippines to the territory and that the issue between them and the Philippines will be resolved with talks arbitrated by the UN at a later date. After the signing of the Accord, Malaya, Singapore, and North Borneo or Kalimantan, as it's commonly called joined SEATO though Indonesia, who was one of the signatories, opted out of joining them. As time passed, the three countries developed a strong, mutually beneficial economic bond with both Malaya and Kalimantan, seeing strong growth and are poised to become the next Asian Dragons/Tigers joining their fellow countries who were already in the Dragon/Tiger economy club.


[1] That's the opinion of the Bruneian sultan towards the Malaysia proposal IOTL.
[2] ITTL, He never met with Harun Muhammad Amin(Harun Aminurrashid) and thus never radicalized.

 

[Clandango]

Whats decades of darkness?

About three hundred thousand words on one page.

 

[Johannes Parisiensis]

Here's another update, It's about Malaysia. I was originally going to post this yesterday for Malaysia's independence day but I didn't get the permission to post until now. but still enjoy.

Interesting.

How would a lower Communist threat influe on the Chinese question in Malaya? What made the union of Malaya and Northern Brunei fail TTL (no Konfrontasi?)? And why would Singapore became independent TTL?

 

[Kammada]

Whats decades of darkness?

A finished TL by Jared with the New England states seceding over the embargo issue in 1810 as POD. The main thread suffered from a server crash, but there's a downloadable complete (or so I presume) 700k words long version hosted on this very site - https://www.alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/

 

[DumbersTC]

Interesting.

How would a lower Communist threat influe on the Chinese question in Malaya? What made the union of Malaya and Northern Brunei fail TTL (no Konfrontasi?)? And why would Singapore became independent TTL?

To answer your question, The federation of Malaysia came to be because of the communist threat and that they need to unite as one in order to contain the communist, the answer to the second question is that a lot of people from Sarawak and North Borneo are opposed to the idea of Malaysia because they fear that they would be subjected to Malaya but the actions of Sukarno discredited these idea. The third question is that without Sarawak and North Borneo in Malaysia, Most Malays would refuse singapore joining them because singaporeans are majority Chinese and they don't want the Chinese dominating them.

 

[chankljp]

A little idea I had after reading the TVTropes page for the "Red Dawn +20" TL:

In TTL, when their version of the AH.com comes along later on, the alternate version of Napoleon posted a TL titled something like... "With a Whimper, Not a Bang", about an ATL with the POD being Stalin dying in 1953, with Khrushchev taking over the USSR. The TL goes all the way to 2000, depicting events such as De-Stalinization, the USSR putting the first satellite and man into space, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Sino-Soviet Split.... etc, evenually ending in the collapse of the Soviet Union and Iron Curtain in 1991 exactly as it happened in OTL, and the post-Cold War world afterwards.

I wonder what will people's reception be towards such a story in TTL? Will they dismiss the story as being too unealistic because in their minds, the idea of the Soviet Union NOT being 'The most evil empire' in history, and not nuking the US right away when they had an advantage over the US in the nuclear arms race being simply incomprehensible? Will De-Stalinization be seen as 'impossible' because having an antisemitic cult of personality, even without Stalin, is seen as a 'fundamental part' of the USSR's character? Will the idea of Red China, and a victorious North Vietnam eventually embracing capitalism be seen as so ASB that it might as well be on par with 'Successful Operation Sealion due to aliens giving Nazis laser guns'?

Just a little something that I have been thinking about.

 

[Magnimik]

I wonder what will people's reception be towards such a story in TTL? Will they dismiss the story as being too unealistic because in their minds, the idea of the Soviet Union NOT being 'The most evil empire' in history, and not nuking the US right away when they had an advantage over the US in the nuclear arms race being simply incomprehensible? Will De-Stalinization be seen as 'impossible' because having an antisemitic cult of personality, even without Stalin, is seen as a 'fundamental part' of the USSR's character? Will the idea of Red China, and a victorious North Vietnam eventually embracing capitalism be seen as so ASB that it might as well be on par with 'Successful Operation Sealion due to aliens giving Nazis laser guns'?

I think that the plausibility of a alternate history timeline simular, but not totally identical, to OTL (USSR somewhat reforms itself, PRC goes capitalist) can be justified ITTL.

Even ITTL there were attempts by Stalin's successors (including Marxist-Leninst dogmatic Suslov) to downplay some of the worst aspects of his policies before the Civil War. Since by 1953 Soviet Union didn't cross the line yet (well, the worst one, at least), I can imagine that some potential Stalin successors can, in the minds of alternate AH.comers, turn USSR much less genocidical and militaristic than during Stalin's reign. However, I can't imagine, for example, that Khrushchev, one of the most loyal and cruel Stalin's minions before Stalin's death, can be seen as the reformist he was in OTL.

China under Mao (if he rules as long he ruled in OTL) that turned capiltaist later can also be questioned, since Mao ITTL was remembered mostly for his disastrous policies and his suicidal overconfidence in the questions of the foreign policy. If something, the capitalist PRC would require removing Mao as soon as possible.

 

[Bookmark1995]

A little idea I had after reading the TVTropes page for the "Red Dawn +20" TL:

In TTL, when their version of the AH.com comes along later on, the alternate version of Napoleon posted a TL titled something like... "With a Whimper, Not a Bang", about an ATL with the POD being Stalin dying in 1953, with Khrushchev taking over the USSR. The TL goes all the way to 2000, depicting events such as De-Stalinization, the USSR putting the first satellite and man into space, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Sino-Soviet Split.... etc, evenually ending in the collapse of the Soviet Union and Iron Curtain in 1991 exactly as it happened in OTL, and the post-Cold War world afterwards.

I wonder what will people's reception be towards such a story in TTL? Will they dismiss the story as being too unealistic because in their minds, the idea of the Soviet Union NOT being 'The most evil empire' in history, and not nuking the US right away when they had an advantage over the US in the nuclear arms race being simply incomprehensible? Will De-Stalinization be seen as 'impossible' because having an antisemitic cult of personality, even without Stalin, is seen as a 'fundamental part' of the USSR's character? Will the idea of Red China, and a victorious North Vietnam eventually embracing capitalism be seen as so ASB that it might as well be on par with 'Successful Operation Sealion due to aliens giving Nazis laser guns'?

Just a little something that I have been thinking about.

ITTL, Mao is mostly remembered as a colossal failure who lost his godlike allure. So ITTL, people could imagine Red China still going down the tubes.

 

[MagicalPhantom345]

So how is Indonesia doing at this point in time anyway?

 

[DumbersTC]

So how is Indonesia doing at this point in time anyway?

Basically suffering under Suharto.

 

[MagicalPhantom345]

Basically suffering under Suharto.

Probably stays in power longer than OTL thanks to the discrediting and collapse of Marxist Leninism.

 

[Midnight-Blue766]

 

[chankljp]

Malayan Syndicalist Party(Parti Syndikal Malaya/马来亚综合党)

This actually brings me to a point that I have been thinking about: In OTL, syndicalism is seen as such an obscure ideology that for a long time, it doesn't even have a proper Chinese translation. At one point, Google Translate have it as '工會組織主義'/'工会组织主义' (Trade Union Organisation-ism), which is... very unwieldy and awkwardly named, to say the least.

ITTL, since syndicalism is going to be the dominate school of thought for the left along side social democracy, it will certainly have a properly translated Chinese name. I personally suggest the name, '工團主義'/'工团主义' (Labor Organisation-ism), as it sounds a lot nicer, fits the normal Chinese naming convention for political ideologies in that the names have four characters (民族主義 - Nationalism, 民主主義 - Democracy, 共產主義 - Communism... etc).

So, in the case of the Malayan Syndicalist Party, perhaps it's Chinese name can be '马来亚工团党' instead. Maybe there can even be a bit of the background lore, in that the MSP was originally name the '综合党', until someone points out that it made their organisation sound like the 'United Party', which is too generic and doesn't really show what they are all about. With '工团党', the name now includes the world '工', which stands for labourer, and will clearly show everyone their organisation's roots in the proletariat working class.

 

[chankljp]

I was just re-reading this TL and the discussion that everyone had contributed to it since it was first posted, and I realized that in TTL, a lot of the propaganda leaflets that the UN troops dropped on the Chinese ‘volunteers’ during the Korean War will now be seen as 100% accurate and prophetic on the China’s ordeal at the hands of the Soviets over the next decade.

On the right: 'The Soviets are refusing to provide full support to the CCP!'

The piece of paper that Zhou Enlai was presenting to Stain: ‘Please send support. From Mao Zedong’

Zhou’s speech bubble: ‘By joining the Korean War, we have suffered close to a million casualties and an uncalculatable number of equipment. Please send help!’

(ITTL, they can add in a part about the Chinese Mainland getting nuked)

‘You are sick and wounded, but lack medical attention. This is all the fault of the communists!’

(This one will be particularly relevant once the smallpox pandemic devastates much of the country)

On the banner in the background: 'Safe travels back home, our puppet!'

Speech text for Stalin and Molotov to Zhou Enlai: ‘Good boy! Go home and do a good job, so that you will keep dear old dad happy! Next time I will give you a better assignment!’

(All the KMT needs to do will be to remove Molotov from this picture, and it will 100% apply to Red China’s situation after their surrender to the Soviets)

‘Soldiers of communist China fighting in Korea! The CCP has made a secret pact with the Soviets, with a clause to use China’s manpower and natural resources to put the Soviet’s plans for world domination via military aggression into a reality! How is this different from the Soviet using China as it’s tool? While the CCP is sacrificing your lives on behalf of the Soviets? Why are you dying for the Soviets? Are you truly doing so willingly?’

(Once again, during their reclamation of the Mainland, all the KMT needs to do is to remove the Korea reference, and delete the ‘secret’ part of the ‘secret pact’, since I am sure that the peace treaty between the PRC and the USSR includes demands for economic reparations, and the country’s full subservience to Moscow)

 

[Magnimik]

View attachment 345334

This is meme is even funnier considering that both TotRT Stalin and Immortan Joe have problems with breathing.



Man, the historiography about the Eastern Front of WWII (aka the Great Patriotic War) in the CNS's Russia is going to be a fun one.

For those nations who were oppressed under Stalin, the question about who was the good guy and the bad guy is self-evident: especially for Balts, Jews and Caucasians, who experienced the same treatment the Nazis planned to do to them anyway.

But for Russians, Belarussians, and probably some other nations that weren't subjected to genocide just for existing (like Georgians), the question will be more complicated. Today in Russia the victory over Germans is the most glorified moment of the Russian history, seeing this as the ultimate victory for the Soviet people against the total extermination, and the Victory Day is the most celebrated holiday in Russia after the New Year Eve. Even for Stalin detractors in modern Russia, the war of the Soviet Union was the war for the noble cause of the defeat of Nazism. One of the reasons why Stalin generally is percieved much warmer than in the West is because he was in charge during such horryfing war and emerged victorious.

But in the universe where Stalin is much worse than Hitler, even if rhetoric like "USSR won in spite of Stalin, not because of him" becomes more common, the perception of the victory over Nazis will be much more complex, considering everything that Stalin and his successors did after the war...

Another topic is the perception of an ordinary Red Army soldier. For Russians it would be hard to accept that their fathers and grandfathers, who defended their homes against the genocidial maniacs, were later engaged in a destructive war against China (the war that was probably even more destructive for China than WWII was for the Soviet Union) and suppressing of revolts in Eastern Europe. In comprasion with the topic of the Clean Wehrmacht myth in the West, there even aren't any scapegoats like SS to blame for all war crimes.

There is also a topic of the pro-German collaborationists. Obviously there won't be a massive change in opinions about Hitler and Nazis, but since the Soviet regime will be considered as no better than Nazi's, collaborationists, being forsaken by the Soviet government, can be seen as the victims of circumstances rather than ordinary Quislings. Even in modern Russia there were unsucessful attempts to rehabilitate generals Krasnov and Shkuro and there are actual monuments of them. In fact, Alexander Solzhenytsin, one of the most influential figures in the CNS ITTL, also sympathized with Vlasov.

One of the most interesting persons in that regard is Boris Smyslovsky, a White emigrant, the founder of the pro-German Russian division during WWII (though he was later imprisoned by Nazis) who managed to escape to Liechtenstein and died in 1988. He is still alive by the current point of ToTRT (in fact, he is the only pro-German Russian collobrationist general I can find who is alive by this point). I wonder how, if he returns to Russia along with other White emigrants, will be percieved by the majority of Russians.