Info on the USSR needed for my setting...
- Thread starter Mr. Draco
- Start date
Maerdwyn
First Post
Alternatively, maybe history is the same as RL up until a few years ago, perhaps as late as the year 2000.
USSR falls apart, Cold War Ends, Yeltsin takes over etc. - but then you exaggerate the problems Russia has had since then.
Unemployment is worse, the currency collapses, the Chechan war becomes even more bloody, etc., all leading to stronger support for hardliners like Zhiranovski, who is elected after Yelstin resigns/dies/is assassinated/flees to a foreign country/etc.
The new leader begins systematically rebuilding the state in the image of the Soviet Union in the Stalinist era. It first goes about recapturing its old republics - some of which rejoin voluntarily others taken by the military under some internationally acceptable pretense. The new administration steadily erodes the reforms of the past 20 years. Russia and the US take opposite sides in some other regional conflict, and while the two sides don't come into open war, the diplomatic damage is severe, and a new Cold War begins.
USSR falls apart, Cold War Ends, Yeltsin takes over etc. - but then you exaggerate the problems Russia has had since then.
Unemployment is worse, the currency collapses, the Chechan war becomes even more bloody, etc., all leading to stronger support for hardliners like Zhiranovski, who is elected after Yelstin resigns/dies/is assassinated/flees to a foreign country/etc.
The new leader begins systematically rebuilding the state in the image of the Soviet Union in the Stalinist era. It first goes about recapturing its old republics - some of which rejoin voluntarily others taken by the military under some internationally acceptable pretense. The new administration steadily erodes the reforms of the past 20 years. Russia and the US take opposite sides in some other regional conflict, and while the two sides don't come into open war, the diplomatic damage is severe, and a new Cold War begins.
Last edited:
It's a little further into the future than your game would call for, but check out Command and Conquer (the video game)...especially the Red Alert series. The game's pretense is that during the cold war each side (us/ussr) invented tons of futuristic combat tools and now are going to war with each other.
Now, for historical stuff to keep the soviet union alive:
1. WWII ended as did in real life, but the soviet military and parts of the soviet province (Lithuania to Moscow) is pretty much in ruins due to the war.
Not only are they angry that a few of the most beautiful cities in the world (St Petersburg, Moscow) are destroyed, they are forced to move the Capital to Vladivostok. Having the capital on a port city suddenly changes the union's military ideals.
The soviet navy becomes one of the strongest in the world. Their submarines are unparalleled, and they have great warships that rival US battleships.
2. Like the guy above said...the war in desert storm devastates the oil supply in the gulf, and baghdad is destroyed. Udai Hussein (Saddam's oldest son) flees to Kazhakstan and unites Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Kazhakstan againt the US.
3. NATO gets involved in the Cechnya dispute and russia goes back to cold war era hatred of the US and it's allies.
Nobody is sure if Pakistan still has the bomb. The UN can't get in to investigate. The soviets (using mass resources from Siberia) start mass producing tanks for Pakistan and China for a tidy profit.
That's all I have for now. Any more help you need, I'll be glad to help.
Now, for historical stuff to keep the soviet union alive:
1. WWII ended as did in real life, but the soviet military and parts of the soviet province (Lithuania to Moscow) is pretty much in ruins due to the war.
Not only are they angry that a few of the most beautiful cities in the world (St Petersburg, Moscow) are destroyed, they are forced to move the Capital to Vladivostok. Having the capital on a port city suddenly changes the union's military ideals.
The soviet navy becomes one of the strongest in the world. Their submarines are unparalleled, and they have great warships that rival US battleships.
2. Like the guy above said...the war in desert storm devastates the oil supply in the gulf, and baghdad is destroyed. Udai Hussein (Saddam's oldest son) flees to Kazhakstan and unites Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Kazhakstan againt the US.
3. NATO gets involved in the Cechnya dispute and russia goes back to cold war era hatred of the US and it's allies.
Nobody is sure if Pakistan still has the bomb. The UN can't get in to investigate. The soviets (using mass resources from Siberia) start mass producing tanks for Pakistan and China for a tidy profit.
That's all I have for now. Any more help you need, I'll be glad to help.
green slime
First Post
DocMoriartty said:
There are those that would argue with some of your basic suppositions here. Not everyone agrees that the collapse of the Soviet union was a foregone conclusion. Many would even argue with the figures you are expounding. But I'll not get into that bucket. I would enjoy a debate on this matter, but I fear the flames would put an end to this interesting thread.
Mr Draco:
=======
Like I said before, first choose when in history your history departs from the real. Decide what has occured since then and why.
Basically the conflicts remain the same: Threat of a catastrophic World War of Epic proportions with the use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. This causes the powers to exercise caution when dealing with each, and maintain a lock on vassal states to prevent them from escalating any conflicts to high.
So most conflicts in the game will be low level, bush fire incidents, localized wars, with the major players seeking a pawn advantage in the local theatre.
This of course, is only allowed to occur in the agreed playing fields. Certain countries are off grounds for subversife activity beyond a certain level, for fear of retaliation in kind.
Thus industrial espionage, and the like is permissable in UK, but arming the communists isn't. (Lets not discus who armed the IRA...)
Of course what would become interesting in 2010 in this scenario would be what rôle the chinese play in this stand off, as a major growing economy. Remember the Soviets would have the base in Cam Rahn Bay (Vietnam), so the USA won't have retreated from the Phillipines.
The Chinese are awful pushy about Taiwan and the South China Sea. Regardless of the Soviets presence, and the Soviet-American stand-off, the growing confidence of the Chinese leadership would be made felt in world affairs.
But would investors have invested so heavily in China prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union? Had the soviets not permitted such openess in their society, would China have fallen into that "trap".
What would 20 years of drug-running to fund various non-budget illegal activities caused the CIA to become? Would the same presidents candidates have won the election? How about military spending in the US? It would surely be higher than it is today. Remember the big cuts in the beginning of the 90s?
How about organised crime? What effects would this have on drug running? The drugs grown in Afghanistan to help fund rebels there need to find buyers. With a Cold War running, would the War Against Drugs ever have occured? Or would it be a return to "Just say No"?
There would be no Russian maffia in Europe, that is for certain. This would mean prostitution would be less rife in middle europe. There would be more spy scandals. As countries around the globe would be less interested in aiding the anti-doping campaign in sports, (in order to promote their system as "best" for young active people) doping in sports would be rampant.
This would cause 2010, the womans track and field record for 100m would be around 10 flat, and the mens around 9,40-9,50.
Same tendancy in all sports. Extrapolate from there.
JacktheRabbit
Explorer
My figures come from "50 Year War" by Norman Friedman, an excellant book.
The Soviet Union could have lasted a decade or two longer if Ronald Reagan had not become President and started the massive arms buildup that he did. This strained the Soviets beyond their ability to sustain for long.
If instead we had another 4 years of Carter who along with Kissinger were nearly ready to surrender then the USSR could have lasted longer. Even that though could not last. The Soviet system as it was at the end of the 70's was not going to survive any sort of big push along the lines that Reagan gave it. If not in the early to mid 80's then maybe later. If Carter had gone two terms though and then been replaced by Clinton then I can easily see the USSR still being around today.
If you really want to talk about this more though then just email me directly.
The Soviet Union could have lasted a decade or two longer if Ronald Reagan had not become President and started the massive arms buildup that he did. This strained the Soviets beyond their ability to sustain for long.
If instead we had another 4 years of Carter who along with Kissinger were nearly ready to surrender then the USSR could have lasted longer. Even that though could not last. The Soviet system as it was at the end of the 70's was not going to survive any sort of big push along the lines that Reagan gave it. If not in the early to mid 80's then maybe later. If Carter had gone two terms though and then been replaced by Clinton then I can easily see the USSR still being around today.
If you really want to talk about this more though then just email me directly.
green slime said:
Let's try...
Why did the USSR not collapse ?
Some possible explanations :
* They did not waste their ressource in Afghanistan, so no afghan war, and far less formerly CIA sponsored islamic terrorism during the 80' and 90'
*They did not waste their ressources trying to counter the IDS
* They reformed their economical system before trying to reform their political system (like
China did), so a lot of special economic zone (example Kaliningrad, in the Baltic sea), whith non regulated capitalism + KGB politic control (paradisiac places)
* Success is a relative thing. Imagine a krach in the west side (by example, due to a war in the middle east and a 100 $ oil barrel...). Like in 30', it would have been a sort of boon for the east block.
*They found new ressources (warning, Sci-Fi). USSR science was sometimes more advanced than its western counterpart. What if they found a way to produce incredible amount of cheap energy via nuclear fusion ? Or imagine a global warming that would waste most of europe and america soil into desertic area, and transform siberia in a verdant garden ?
*Extraordinary event (more Sci-Fi, and worst) : E.T. intervention leading to a global alliance or the contrary (two E.T. faction giving support to the two side ?). You can replace the E.T. by demon/angel/ghost/wizard. Think Shadowrun + In Nomine. (I personaly don't like this kind of setting but YMMV...)
Now what about the consequences ?
I'm assuming your player will be westerner, not Reds, so I will speak more of what could have happen in the west side.
* invasion, occupation, resistance, in a post nuclear apocalypse setting (note that the reverse is possible too and perhaps more realistic, the USSR never had the logistic means of an invasion in the enemy continent. The USA did.)
* militarization (sp ?) : imagine a return of McCarthysm (sp, bis), with an heightened governemental paranoïa + modern technology (watch drone everywhere, every mail/phone watched by the NSA...) You can even imagine a totally reversed situation, whith an oppressive system in the west side, and a relatively free one in the east. Or for an even darker setting, two dictatorial blocks, one ruled by a consortium led by immortal (genetically enhanced) elite CEO, the other being a restalinized USSR, controlled by a fanatic IA.
* business as usual : the antagonism between the two is lessened by their interdependance. So a lot of inflamatory speech ("Empire of Evil", "Imperialist State") but not a lot of action.
* for even more fun, add a third player. The EU is not qualified for this (unless some demographic twist, maybe) but China or India may be.
Why did the USSR not collapse ?
Some possible explanations :
* They did not waste their ressource in Afghanistan, so no afghan war, and far less formerly CIA sponsored islamic terrorism during the 80' and 90'
*They did not waste their ressources trying to counter the IDS
* They reformed their economical system before trying to reform their political system (like
China did), so a lot of special economic zone (example Kaliningrad, in the Baltic sea), whith non regulated capitalism + KGB politic control (paradisiac places)
* Success is a relative thing. Imagine a krach in the west side (by example, due to a war in the middle east and a 100 $ oil barrel...). Like in 30', it would have been a sort of boon for the east block.
*They found new ressources (warning, Sci-Fi). USSR science was sometimes more advanced than its western counterpart. What if they found a way to produce incredible amount of cheap energy via nuclear fusion ? Or imagine a global warming that would waste most of europe and america soil into desertic area, and transform siberia in a verdant garden ?
*Extraordinary event (more Sci-Fi, and worst) : E.T. intervention leading to a global alliance or the contrary (two E.T. faction giving support to the two side ?). You can replace the E.T. by demon/angel/ghost/wizard. Think Shadowrun + In Nomine. (I personaly don't like this kind of setting but YMMV...)
Now what about the consequences ?
I'm assuming your player will be westerner, not Reds, so I will speak more of what could have happen in the west side.
* invasion, occupation, resistance, in a post nuclear apocalypse setting (note that the reverse is possible too and perhaps more realistic, the USSR never had the logistic means of an invasion in the enemy continent. The USA did.)
* militarization (sp ?) : imagine a return of McCarthysm (sp, bis), with an heightened governemental paranoïa + modern technology (watch drone everywhere, every mail/phone watched by the NSA...) You can even imagine a totally reversed situation, whith an oppressive system in the west side, and a relatively free one in the east. Or for an even darker setting, two dictatorial blocks, one ruled by a consortium led by immortal (genetically enhanced) elite CEO, the other being a restalinized USSR, controlled by a fanatic IA.
* business as usual : the antagonism between the two is lessened by their interdependance. So a lot of inflamatory speech ("Empire of Evil", "Imperialist State") but not a lot of action.
* for even more fun, add a third player. The EU is not qualified for this (unless some demographic twist, maybe) but China or India may be.
Jürgen Hubert
First Post
If you want to inject a few elements of horror or the supernatural into your wordl, I recommend "Delta Green: Countdown", which has a section on a Sovjet agency dedicated to investigating the supernatural - and some of the things they discovered.
This works best in a "secret magic" campaign.
This works best in a "secret magic" campaign.
Roland Delacroix
First Post
For a present/future campaign in russia, why aren't you using the Spyraft rules? Who uses a Flaming Holy Avenger +3 in 2010?
If you want stuff set in the past, look for AEG's 7th sea book on Ussura. It has some good info on mideval/renassance russia. You could put in a few minuites to change their names back to the original and have a good resource there.
Sorry, ive never even heard about a present-day russian setting. Hrmmm, maybe some of Turtledoves alternate history?
If you want stuff set in the past, look for AEG's 7th sea book on Ussura. It has some good info on mideval/renassance russia. You could put in a few minuites to change their names back to the original and have a good resource there.
Sorry, ive never even heard about a present-day russian setting. Hrmmm, maybe some of Turtledoves alternate history?
DocMoriartty said:
(green slime @ home)
Hmmm... i suspected as much. I'll just say that not everyone agrees with the "Reaganites" (I use this term for lack of a better) on this analysis. But thanks for the book recommendation. I'll try to see if I can find in the library.
I would argue that it wasn't the military buildup directly, but more that the political leadership in USSR lacked the force of will to risk the good will of the west in order to quell the rising voices for independance. Something the Chinese leadership had no qualms about doing at Tianamen Square. Once they let the cat out of the bag, there was no looking back. And once you let the Eastern European states go, They couldn't hold onto the "soviets" of Ukraine, Belorussia, Georgia, and so on. (but had USSR continued to exist, there would be no real chechen rebel movement)
The trouble with examining the Soviet economy is that it is like comparing apples to pears. It is so very different. There is no doubt, though, that the military and energy departments consumed huge amounts of resources. But so to do these departments in present China... And China too, has many diverse peoples who think they would enjoy freedom from the central authority. Yet I see noone seriously speculating that China is about to disintegrate...However should the voices for freedom be unrestrained and allowed to organise themselves within the country, then that would be a different matter entirely. (and the subject for a very different thread). This is something of which the Communist Party Leadership in China is all too aware.
Side note:
And judging by voting habits in the West over the last 50 years, it could be agrued that they have a point: People are not interested in freedom (as exercised in the right to vote), they are interested in affluence. I guess people want what they haven't got.
Which considering that even in the West, the right for everyman to vote is still a very modern and young idea. (Sweden 1911; allowed the vote for everyman, even those non-landowners!; 1921; Women get the vote in Sweden) so only 90-100 years old.
Wow, this is all really great advice! Keep it coming!
Well, I've almost decided exactly when my setting is different than history. The two finalist options are:
a) The US finished developing the atmoic bomb a few months (2-3) before the war in Europe ended. The first one was sent over on a ship to England in case it would be needed. With the end of the war, and no hostilities breaking out instantly between the Soviet Union and the Allies, the bomb was shipped back by boat secretly. Meanwhile, the war in the Pacific was going better than expected, and the Japanese were pushed back to their mainland within 4-6 months. Now there were three atomic weapons in existance, two were dropped from planes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the third one was being shipped back to Los Alamos. Unfortunately, just days after the Japanese surrender, while passing through Detroit's industrial sector, the bomb detonated, leveling factories and irradiating the ground. The resulting radioactive cloud was unfortunately pushed east, directly past the factories and steel mills, almost to downtown Pittsburgh before the winds halted its advance.
This would put the US on an economic level of the Soviet Union right at the end of World War Two (hopefully) and with this equality, the Cold War should be drawn out to 2010.
b) At the end of the European theatre of World War Two, at the conference of Yalta, it was decided that every country should have freedom of choice over its political system, with the exception that the German voting should be presided over by the United States, Great Britain, and the USSR to prevent the rise of another Nazi party. In a surprising result, the countries of Germany and all those east of it, including Greece (but not Italy) voted almost unanimously to join the Soviet Union as republics under the rule of Moscow. This sudden influx of devoted workers allowed the USSR to rebuild its industry relatively quickly, and to tap much of the unused resources of Siberia.
This would bring the USSR up the the US in terms of economics (hopefully). The increased voluntary division in Europe would make for an interesting situation in present day i think.
Well, let me know which one you guys think i should go with, also, please post some ideas about how it would have influenced history...
Thanks in advance!
EDIT- I accidentally put 'west' under option b with regards to the countries becoming a part of the soviet union. It should have been east (fixed now)
Well, I've almost decided exactly when my setting is different than history. The two finalist options are:
a) The US finished developing the atmoic bomb a few months (2-3) before the war in Europe ended. The first one was sent over on a ship to England in case it would be needed. With the end of the war, and no hostilities breaking out instantly between the Soviet Union and the Allies, the bomb was shipped back by boat secretly. Meanwhile, the war in the Pacific was going better than expected, and the Japanese were pushed back to their mainland within 4-6 months. Now there were three atomic weapons in existance, two were dropped from planes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the third one was being shipped back to Los Alamos. Unfortunately, just days after the Japanese surrender, while passing through Detroit's industrial sector, the bomb detonated, leveling factories and irradiating the ground. The resulting radioactive cloud was unfortunately pushed east, directly past the factories and steel mills, almost to downtown Pittsburgh before the winds halted its advance.
This would put the US on an economic level of the Soviet Union right at the end of World War Two (hopefully) and with this equality, the Cold War should be drawn out to 2010.
b) At the end of the European theatre of World War Two, at the conference of Yalta, it was decided that every country should have freedom of choice over its political system, with the exception that the German voting should be presided over by the United States, Great Britain, and the USSR to prevent the rise of another Nazi party. In a surprising result, the countries of Germany and all those east of it, including Greece (but not Italy) voted almost unanimously to join the Soviet Union as republics under the rule of Moscow. This sudden influx of devoted workers allowed the USSR to rebuild its industry relatively quickly, and to tap much of the unused resources of Siberia.
This would bring the USSR up the the US in terms of economics (hopefully). The increased voluntary division in Europe would make for an interesting situation in present day i think.
Well, let me know which one you guys think i should go with, also, please post some ideas about how it would have influenced history...
Thanks in advance!
EDIT- I accidentally put 'west' under option b with regards to the countries becoming a part of the soviet union. It should have been east (fixed now)
Last edited:
Similar Threads
