Info on the USSR needed for my setting...

[Green Knight]

To be honest, I don't buy Option B. After fighting a bloody war against German aggression, all these countries decide to effectively surrender to the Soviets, who're just as bad as the Nazis, without even firing a shot? France I can see. They probably figured they'd be invaded eventually so they decided to just save time. But everyone else? They just up and came to the conclusion that "Hey, we just fought off one power-mad dictator in the form of Hitler. Wouldn't it be keen if we submitted ourselves to the rule of another power-mad dictator in the form of Stalin?"

I say go with Option A.

 

[Mr. Draco]

My mistake, I accidentally put 'countries west of germany' under option b when it should have been 'countries east of germany'

Fixed now though

 

[Talvisota]

As someone who has studied the USSR and it's aftermath all of his life, speaks Russian fluently, and now lives in the former USSR, I could not help but add my 2cp.

East Europeans HATED and still HATE Russians, and indeed, before WWII one Polish colonel was quoted as saying "With the Germans we would lose our independence, but with the Russians we would lose our souls."

This is why I just do not buy plan B at all, considering especially that the USSR caused far more general devastation in E Europe than the Nazis did during the "liberation." In addition, you cannot compare economies at all - the west was dozens of times larger due to free market capitalization. Communism has shown that it cannot make the leap from a generally industrial economy to an information one because it is based on the control of information.

Stalin indeed did agree at Yalta to let all E Europe countries have free elections. History shows how good his word was.

IMO, if the USSR lasted until 2010 we would not have had the euphoric boom of the 90's as a new generation would still have been under the gun of the cold war.

The USSR could easily have survived into the 90's and beyond, and indeed it was Yeltsin that caused it to tumble, and the August coup of 1991 was the straw that broke the camel's back. I would recommend, for ease, that "the 90's" didn't happen, and that the world went through 3 decades similar in economic and geopolitical terms to the 80's. Besides, it is fantasy, anyway.

And the Cardinal of the Kremlin is my recommendation for a good read on getting a feel for it, but without the technology. THe USSR was far less capable in that area than we had thought.

Another is "THe Russia House." Watch the movie, too, it is educational. And for a good flick that goes through the rough late 80's, try HBO's "Citizen X."

 

[Mr. Draco]

As someone who has studied the USSR and it's aftermath all of his life, speaks Russian fluently, and now lives in the former USSR, I could not help but add my 2cp.

East Europeans HATED and still HATE Russians, and indeed, before WWII one Polish colonel was quoted as saying "With the Germans we would lose our independence, but with the Russians we would lose our souls."

This is why I just do not buy plan B at all, considering especially that the USSR caused far more general devastation in E Europe than the Nazis did during the "liberation." In addition, you cannot compare economies at all - the west was dozens of times larger due to free market capitalization. Communism has shown that it cannot make the leap from a generally industrial economy to an information one because it is based on the control of information.

Stalin indeed did agree at Yalta to let all E Europe countries have free elections. History shows how good his word was.

IMO, if the USSR lasted until 2010 we would not have had the euphoric boom of the 90's as a new generation would still have been under the gun of the cold war.

The USSR could easily have survived into the 90's and beyond, and indeed it was Yeltsin that caused it to tumble, and the August coup of 1991 was the straw that broke the camel's back. I would recommend, for ease, that "the 90's" didn't happen, and that the world went through 3 decades similar in economic and geopolitical terms to the 80's. Besides, it is fantasy, anyway.

And the Cardinal of the Kremlin is my recommendation for a good read on getting a feel for it, but without the technology. THe USSR was far less capable in that area than we had thought.

Another is "THe Russia House." Watch the movie, too, it is educational. And for a good flick that goes through the rough late 80's, try HBO's "Citizen X."

Ok, you've convinced me. Option 'a' it is. Now, the question is how would an atomic detonation like that (of equivalent power to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima) affect the area it occured in (i.e.- industrial section of Detroit). Would it have irradiated the ground for hundreds of years to come? What would the destruction look like? How would it have been likely to affect the development of the US in the years following it?

 

[Asmodeus]

Imagine you were the ruler of the USSR during Brezhnev's or Gorby's time. What would you do to keep your country viable and strong.

What about having Russia/USSR integrating their southern Asian states more properly into the idea of Russia as well as not separating Ukraine from Russia to be a Republic itself. Imagine the USSR as mainly one large country(Russia), rather than a large conutry providing for many of its dependencies in regards to military strenght and aid.

Allow the Eastern European states to remain semi-independent from Russia. IF they overthrow their governments, so be it. Cut your losses and lose a little prestige. Keep close with Chinafor mutual aid and protection. You have the economic power but they have unparalled manpower. If they ever decide to take your Siberia, kiss it goodbye unless you resort to nukes. Thaw ties with Europe and stop promoting Communism but make yourself as the banner gatherer for those opposed to the US like France(who you tradionally enjoy close ties with) while epanding influence in Asia which is a much more fertile ground for discontent against the US.

Develop your economy. Plan something like the 5 year plans of old but without the ruthlessness of Stalin. Set aside significant sums of GDP to develop it over the next 15-20 years. Do something about your agriculture. Damn it, you have in Ukraine among the most fertile land in Europe andf you have a problem feeding the multitudes. Loosen up econimically to build up your base and do something like China is doing now. Or rather slowly imitate the Japanese economy.

Remember you only need a few thousand nukes to blow your enemies away. Beyond that it starts to get redundant.

What about US influence and interference. Keep them busy by bothering/helping those African countries under military dictatorships and are mad for wars. Never let Israel have any breathing space. Apply pressure through Syria/Iraq/Iran. American interest and lobbyist run too deep there for them to let Israel sink. Afghanistan is a country and has had ideas of nationalism, after your first initial forays and defeats, regroup and start from the North of the country. If anybody else wants to try to control the country, let them. Eventually the Mujahideen will start looknig on them as oppressors and start their civil war against them.

Anyway I think I have gone on long enough about ways to keep Russia viable, now extrapolate till 2010 and you may get what you are looknig for. If I have time, I will post up what I think my version of Russia will look like in 2010.

Enjoy

 

[Mark Chance]

Another source...

If you want a very dry but very well-researched and documented study of Communism's systematic murdering of about 100 million in the 20th century, you can do no better than The Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard University Press, authored by Stephane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panne, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, and Jean-Louis Margolin.

The book deals with the systematic use of terror, lies, and mass murder that has been from the Bolshevik Revolution and continues to be down to the present day the modus operandi of every Communist government. The first 400-some-odd pages deal specifically with the USSR and its satellites.

 

[Dragongirl]

I really don't think that an old atomic bomb going off in the US industrial area in 1945 is going to do what you want. For one thing, the US would recover rather fast, just look Japan or Germany after WWII who suffered much more damage than that. In the short term, sure the US would be greatly hurt and the Soviets might be on par, but you are starting this about 60 years later. That long term will show the same problems of the Soviet system, and the resiliancy of a western style economy.

Personally I just think you should keep hard liners in power in the Soviet Union. Make them not try to compete soooo hard in the 80s since their military was more than enough to ensure we would not attack them. Do that, and I don't see why you can't extend the life of the Soviet Union by 20 years.

 

[Asmodeus]

The question is whether you want a declining and decaying USSR or the noe that fought WWII.

To make USSR succeed, utilize its strengths-
1)Large force of manpower
2)Enormous untapped natural resources

I think you will have to find a way to lessen the corruption inherent of the Soviet way. Better management and changing the focus of belief from communism to something which most of the people can believe in like Mother Russia or Orthodox Christianity or anything you can think off.

Now the idea of nuking America's industrial sector could work but maybe another alternative.
The USA did not use the atom bomb on Japan but rather engaged them in land naval battles, extending the conflict and exhausting American resources and military manpower. The decision not to nuke Japan could come form Roosevelt who did not want to attack civilian populations.

This could mean that the US would be distracted while the Soviet Union strenghtens its hold in Europe and consolidate its power and territories. The US arrives late in Europe during the peace years and is unable to prevent the Soviet Union from controlling most of Germany and manages to capture Constantinople/Istanbul allowing it to run free in the Mediterranean which it so desperately sought.

Enjoy

 

[green slime]

As someone who has studied the USSR and it's aftermath all of his life, speaks Russian fluently, and now lives in the former USSR, I could not help but add my 2cp.

East Europeans HATED and still HATE Russians, and indeed, before WWII one Polish colonel was quoted as saying "With the Germans we would lose our independence, but with the Russians we would lose our souls."

That is because:
a) the Poles have a long history of fighting the Russians.
b) the Poles gained their independance from Imperial Russia during the collapse of Tsarist Russia.
c) The poles fought bloody battles with the Russians in the early 1920s.

On the other hand:
The Greeks were having a Communist revolution at the end of WWII which was forcefully put down with English troops.
The Serbs never hated the Russians. The language of the Serbs is VERY similar to Russian. They are part of Eastern Europe.
In Italy, the first elections after the war required a massive covert operation by the US in order to prevent a communist victory in the democratic elections.

Why did Russia let this occur?
1) perhaps they had no choice.
2) perhaps they realised the consequences of meddling in the affairs of what had been agreed at Yalta to be within the American sphere of influence.

This is why I just do not buy plan B at all, considering especially that the USSR caused far more general devastation in E Europe than the Nazis did during the "liberation." In addition, you cannot compare economies at all - the west was dozens of times larger due to free market capitalization. Communism has shown that it cannot make the leap from a generally industrial economy to an information one because it is based on the control of information.

Not in the 50s it wasn't. The west only really pulled away during the 70's and onward.

The inability to spread information was indeed a serious drawback.

Stalin indeed did agree at Yalta to let all E Europe countries have free elections. History shows how good his word was.

IF Roosevelt had not been so sick, or if he had listened to Churchill, then perhaps...(another thread)

And the Cardinal of the Kremlin is my recommendation for a good read on getting a feel for it, but without the technology. THe USSR was far less capable in that area than we had thought.

And that would depend; They were leading in many areas of metallurgy, had been leading in Laser technology (until Star Wars), and in many areas of mathematics, as well as aerodynamics.

On the other hand; They are having SERIOUS health issues. Pollution was in some places on a scale unimagined here in the west. By the beginning of the 90's they were having trouble filling the ranks of their conscript army, due to the general poor health of the populance. The factories have been pouring chemicals into the water, and spewing metals into the atmosphere.

Look at the disappearance of the Aral Sea: They have caused the sea to become a desert. The flora dies, and what is left is a nasty concotion of fertilizers and herbicides blowing around causing enormous human sufering.

 

[S'mon]

Whatever you do, please, please, please DON'T use the movie "RED DAWN" as a resource.

Ulrick

Hey, we all know no Spetsnaz platoon is a match for a bunch of midwestern high school kids!

Seriously, that was the only part of the movie where they weren't even _trying_ to get the audience to maintain suspension of disbelief. 40 or so Spetsnaz moving through the trees in battle formation come under fire from ca 6 school kid guerillas (the protagonists) and a protracted fire fight breaks out. Next thing you know, apparently the Spetsnaz have been wiped out without loss to the kiddies!