Archives (April 2011 – September 2011)

Some more ideas... ура!


Sorry, guess I am a little hyper at the moment. Anyway, here are a couple of ideas I would like to throw around and get some feedback on, because I personally am stumped on an answer.

  • Decline of NATO?: I have recently reconsidered the expansion of NATO for TTL, and have decided that the Soviets would not allow NATO to expand anymore east. I have come up with an even more interesting idea, what I call the Neutral Bloc, in which Poland and so on declare their neutrality between NATO and the CSTO, but agree on joint and equal cooperation. With that said and done, I have recently been thinking about France. I never knew this, but France has not been an active part of NATO since the 1960s. NATO forces in France no longer exist, but France continues to work as part of NATO. In fact, it has only been recently (i.e., the Civil War in Libya) that France has openly discussed reintegrating with NATO. Maybe with the USSR continuing to exist, and having friendly relations with the west, and France's importance with European Integration, maybe France would go in a completely different direction. Maybe France would drop their cards and completely leave NATO all together. It doesn't sound so far-fetched to me. Out of all the NATO nations, France has had the closest relations with the USSR during the later years of the Cold War (including French cosmonauts as part of the Intercosmos program). I also have been trying to reinterpret the EU in TTL. While EU membership is taken by Russia as being absolute relations with the west in OTL, the EU would be taken as a more neutral organization, which forms as a means to protect the sovereignty of Europe from the USSR and USA, and France would be a big part in this. Just as in OTL, the EU is growing and growing, possibly going to become a superpower in the following century, so I believe it would have to eventually move towards its own sphere. So in short, with the Cold War over, the end of the Iron Curtain, and the USSR working peacefully with the west, the French would reconsider their involvement in NATO. With Poland, Czechoslovakia, et al. forming what would become the "Neutral Bloc," France considered itself in a similar situation. In fact, France only left NATO command because it too wanted to protect its sovereignty (believing NATO was more in control by the US and UK, while France was on the bottom). In response to the Neutral Bloc, France would declare their secession from NATO, which wouldn't be so much of a problem since NATO forces haven't been in France in decades. France declare to establish equal cooperation with NATO and the USSR. Maybe Germany and other NATO members would follow suit, leaving only the US, UK, and the most loyal members left in NATO. Though still a major military bloc, it would not be as powerful as in OTL (while the Soviet bloc would also be just as loose). France (and maybe Germany, if they too decide to leave) would be the main players in the future of the EU, leading to the rise of "Europeanism," the idea that Europe should be in control of Europeans, not by the Americans or the Soviets. So ironically, the US would also loose their bloc in Europe.
  • Yugoslav Republic of Dardania: In TTL, I have already decided that the Yugoslav-Kosovar relations would be more peaceful. Though not brotherly, it would be peaceful enough to avoid war and the further collapse of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia would elect Milo Đukanović as president in 1997 for is support of a Soviet-like system of sovereignty in Yugoslavia. Unlike Slobodan, Dukanovich (with great support from Gorbachev) would work to bring peace between the Slavic majority and the Albanian minority. In 2000, Kosovar President Ibrahim Rugova (just as in OTL) would propose the creation of "Dardania" (a historic name for Kosovo, used by Albanians in the region). But unlike OTL, this Dardania is larger. Rugova would propose a united republic between the "Republic of Kosova" (the Serbian controlled region that we all know as Kosovo), and the self proclaimed "Republic of Ilirida" (the Albanian regions in Macedonia). Ironically, Serbs would welcome the idea (primarily because it would keep the region within Yugoslavia, and because Serbia has already expanded to include Srpska), but the Macedonians would be a little bit peeved at the idea. After a minor crises in 2001, the Albanians of Macedonia request to become part of a greater Yugoslav-Albanian republic. In 2002, the Albanians gain their wish. The Republic of Dardania is formed with the unification of Kosova and Ilirida, and now the "Dardanians" gain full sovereignty and equality in Yugoslavia.

I would really appreciate some feedback, get some external opinions before I consider making any of this canon. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:40, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

The Dardania concept is a good one. I'm not so sure, mind about the French leaving NATO, however. They haven't left since the collapse of the USSR otl, and enjoy the little "security blanket" it offers them - i.e. they don't have to do anything, but get all the benefits anyways. Here, with the USSR still intact, though not so imperialistic or controlling, I kinda doubt that they would shed this. It's not like they normally listen to NATO anyways, lol. Maybe just have them pull their troops out of Germany like otl, and aid the Soviets in the third world somewhat? Lordganon 19:03, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your feedback, Lordganon. Now that I do think of it, it may be good for France to remain in NATO, but I think it should remain out of the command in any case. I still need to work out the kinks on Dardania, but glad to hear it sounds good.
I also came across an interesting find that might be interesting for Japan... maybe. I read that Gorbachev was planning on established better Soviet-Japanese relations, and one of the ways he wanted to do this was to bring and end and work out the Kuril Question. Gorbachev made it clear that the USSR would not hand over all the islands, but would be willing to discuss the Northern Territories (the southernmost islands that are closest to Japan). When the USSR collapsed, Yeltin's government was more defiant on loosing any of the islands, and more worried about internal affairs. Though I can't say how this would turn out, maybe the USSR would agree on the Japanese definition, or vise versa, but there was a proposal to only give the southern most and smallest islands back to Japan. It isn't a bad idea, after all, the USSR was than finalizing border disputes between neighboring China, so why not give Japan back these islands, and make better friends with Japan than the Russo-Japanese relations are now. Also, I came across an article which along with mentioning the visit, Japan offered aid to the Chernobyl tragedy. IRONY! --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:22, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
Well, even Putin as recently as a few years ago offered the return of the two smallest southern ones in exchange for a permanent peace treaty, which the two have still not signed. By the sounds of that article, if you have the Soviet Union offer the southernmost 4 or so, in exchange for the treaty, the Japanese would do it. With Gorby wanting to work it out, I think that's reasonable. Lordganon 15:00, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. After doing some more reading, I am more eager to have the this work out. I read that Japan was one of the inspirations for perestroika. If Gorby (I love that, but I keep forgetting about it) was really willing to talk about it, I think it could work out in favor for both. Japan gets the Northern Territories (all four islands), in exchange that Japan not militarize the islands (similar to the USSR's position on the German Reunification), the rights of Soviet citizens living on the islands, and opening up aid and economic cooperation between the USSR and Japan. IMHO, I don't think loosing these islands would be as much of a big deal for Gorby, as he live in a nation that would be twice the size of Yeltin's Russia, and the backing of the republics. The USSR also gained portions of Moldova and Gerogia just prior to when this would be made official, and imagine the economic boom that the USSR and Japan (who at the time were both declining [the USSR more than Japan]). I will work it out a little, but I am happy to think about it. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:12, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Just don't forget that the peace treaty would have to be part of the arrangement. Past that, sounds great. Lordganon 04:34, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan SAR?

A few weeks ago, an anonymous user created a page for China. In the "OTL equivalent," it states that it was China and Taiwan. I don't know if it was a typo, their definition, or whether they had an idea they wanted to propose. I am not an expert on China, but I do know that there are Two Chinas. The People's Republic of China is the communist government for the mainland (which also includes Hong Kong and Macau as SARs), while Taiwan is governed by the democratic (and nationalist) Republic of China. I have been doing some quick reading on the aspect of Chinese reunification, and found out that the policy which would reunite Hong Kong and Macau with the mainland was called One country, two systems. The policy was made by Deng something (Chinese Gorby?), and was maid primarily for the reunification of the mainland and Taiwan. Though the policy would eventually reunite China and two cities, Taiwan is still separate. I read that this was due to more politicians supportive of independence (the formation of a "Republic of Taiwan"), rather than reunification.

Flag of Taiwan (New Union)

A flag for the Taiwan SAR?

But after doing some reading, I think that there could be a possibility that the OCTS could work out in favor of a full reunification of China. I was thinking of a double-edged sword, in which both sides cave in and lead to a (potentially) better atmosphere for both. Here's what I thought of:

  • Gorbachev's openness to its neighbors has begun to scare some people in the PRC. In only a matter of years, the USSR has reopened relations with Japan (by giving back the northern territories), and has established relations with South Korea (a nation which it did not recognize just years earlier). There was growing fear that Gorbachev may try to establish relations with the Republic of China. Though many nations recognize the ROC, the fact that the USSR would made many fear that this would lead to a shift in the region, and would cause the USSR to potentially support Taiwanese independence. Because of this, the PRC would be more determined to reunite the two Chinas, even if it means loosening the proposed polices to do this (i.e., more autonomy for Taiwan?).
  • On the other side of the strait, the reforms of the USSR into a union of sovereign states has spread across Taiwan. Though there would still be a divide, more and more Taiwanese show interest in reunification. The idea would be loved more when the PRC offers changes to its original proposal, which would be somewhat more beneficial for Taiwan.

Some point prior to 1996, the reunification of Taiwan and the mainland would take place. Later, Hong Kong and Macau would become part of the PRC, completing the reunification. Just like OTL HK, Taiwan would gain autonomy (if not more that OTL). The TWD would remain the currency on the island, and capitalism would remain on the island. Taiwan would retain a separate internet sever from the mainland (just as HK and Macau), which would lead to controversy today as Google would work there instead of the mainland. Though the mainland would like to keep it secret, the aspects of Taiwanese independence continues to exist on Taiwan, and would also have support from several in HK and Macau. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:27, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

A good idea in theory, but I have to kinda doubt it would happen unless China reformed its government to be like your USSR did here. Even then, it would probably just stay independent, but with a much more pro-reunification view than otl. Lordganon 01:15, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Union of Balkania


The Flag of Balkania?

I was just browsing through the Wikipedia and I dug up an article about a proposed state called "Balkania". It was the name of a proposed state for a reformation of Yugoslavia, It was suggested by a Albanian politician Adem Demaci. I've created a flag for a concept, I've used the Byzantine eagle as the symbol, and the four stars for the 4 republics. Vidboy10 21:20, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Balkania (New Union)

You read my mind!

Great minds think alike. I actually considered this idea before, but I believe this was too optimistic for Yugoslavia at the time. I decided that it would be better to incorporate the Balkania idea in a different way. The words of Demaci would become big news in Yugoslavia, and would lead to the rise in republican sovereignty in Yugoslavia, and the formation of Dardania. Similar to how Saharov's proposed constitution to the Soviet Union in 1989 was used in some reference for the New Union Treaty, I think the politicians would have to tweak it before it became true. But man, I am amazed you have heard about the idea too. Where did you find the flag? I had to go reading threw Serbian books in order to find even the description that Demaci proposed. Here's what I made a while ago, I can't believe how similar they are. Thank you for bringing this up, you made my day ^_^ --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 21:49, April 10, 2011 (UTC)


Ever since Libya broke out into civil war, it has turned this timeline upside down for me. It is hard to really figure out the situation for the region, because Libya was the biggest Middle Eastern ally of the USSR. Libya would be the first nation to recognize Russia as the successor state of the USSR in OTL, so I believe it would be one of the first to recognize the new government of the USSR.

It is both easy and hard to determine what will become of Libya. If anything, Libya would probably turn out to be just like Egypt. There was not foreign intervention in Egypt, primarily because it was a major US ally. Now with me reading the possibility that Libya may collapse into three or so new nations, it is now getting more confusing. So let me get my ducks in a row. Here's what I want for Libya, that would be possible for TTL.

  • Libya would not break down into several nations. If anything, it may turn out like the USSR, in which it is a federation of sovereign states. This would only be if Gadaffi leaves power. Otherwise, I see nothing against dividing the nation into several states.
  • The USSR would not allow foreign intervention in Libya. So no NATO-led invasion as OTL. However, the USSR would support sanctions against Libya, and would publicly denounce Gadaffi's actions against the Libyan people.
  • Many Libyan rebels would look towards both the USSR and the USA for assistance. While the USA would probably go completely in support for the rebels, the USSR would be more or less "neutral." In most cases, Medvedev and the USSR would be more supportive of a ceasefire rather than a complete victory of one side. The USSR (both politically and demographically) would be divided between pro-Gadaffi and pro-Rebel. Many in the USSR (especially the Islamic republics) would favor democracy for Libya. In fact, many Soviet citizens who remained in Libya would advocate Soviet support for the rebels, possibly with many volunteers from the USSR traveling to Libya (any way they could) to assist in the conflict. There would also be rumors that Medvedev and the Soviet government are aiding the rebels in Libya, though it has not been confirmed.

Still have a lot to work out, but either way, it will be interesting. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:25, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the splitting of Libya just yet, nuke. While it may happen, I personally doubt it. However, it is out there, specifically because of the artificial nature of Libya - the ruler of Cyrenica was given the other thrones in the aftermath of WWII, against quite a few wishes. At most, Libya could go into Tripoliana and Cyrenica. At this point, though, its more so a question of how long things go on than who succeeds. Lordganon 15:44, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

We could put the Libyan Civil War in the timeline, but dividing the nation into seperate states did not happen if the OTL of Libyan's civil war, so that will be out of the question from now on. 21:48, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi's philosophy had been more influenced by Maoism that by Marxist-Leninism. It shows in how he titled his book The Green Book after the Chinese Quotations from Chairman Mao (aka The Little Red Book).

Yank 21:58, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

New Republics of the Union

1) About republics of the USSR. Their number should grow much. At first, in 1990-s many ASSR of RSFSR wanted to be transformed in the Union republics, with all the ensuing economic benefits. All ASSR in their new constitutions, taken around 1991, named themselves SSR. This is first.

Some so called “Russian” regions of RSFSR would form SSR too. In August 1991 was formed Cossack republics in the Caucasus region: Batalpashinsk Cossack SSR and Zelenchuk-Urup Cossack SSR. 30 November Union of Cossack republics of southern Russia was proclaimed as Union republic in the New Union. This is second.

New wave of forming the SSR can started in the middle 1990-s. OTL economical troubles prompted some governors to try to equate their region on the status of a national republic (such as Anatoly Efremov and Pomor Republic proposal in Arkhangelsk or Eduard Rossel and Ural Republic proposal in Sverdlovsk) – to more easily manage the budget. In New Union TL this regions also can form SSR. This is third.

I think, that in NU TL such as in OTL economical troubles of 1990-s lead to the rebirth of the communist opposition. In OTL Russia during this times was term “the Red Belt” – regions, where the local power belonged to CPRF. In TTL, this regions also can try to form SSR – where

socialist values will preserved and legitimized in constitutions in 1936-style. This is forth.

So, after all of the above, RSFSR in the New Union, I think, will totally disappear. And in the middle 2000-s same thing will be happen with Ukraine. The contradictions between the East and West, which OTL took the form of the struggle between Yushchenko, Tymoshenko and Yanukovich TTL can divide Ukraine into several parts, and Western Ukraine even can secede from the Union.

Здравствуйте, 2303. Haven't seen you in a while. Don't know why you made mention that Baltia was a failure, since I said you could work on it. Anyway, time to comment on several of these suggestions^_^
  1. The Cossacks declared their own republics? Is this backed by true accounts, or is this an idea you came up with. Either way, I am actually quite fascinated at the idea. If the Circassians can gain their own republic, I would be honored for the Cossacks to also gain a republic. But the question would be whether their republic would be feasible (see 2 below)
  2. I am quite aware that pretty much every autonomous republic in the RSFSR (let alone the entire USSR). But the majority of these declarations of sovereignty would not have been feasible, and I believe many of them were only trying to send a message to Moscow. I read somewhere that the USSR has a "criteria" for what defines a SSR. But since it was never official or constitutionally used, I have been quite lenient on it. The three rules were: 1) A Union Republic must have a population no less than a million, to secure the republics militia and economy. I have been very lenient with this, lowering it down to be [more or less] 2/3 a million. 2) The titular peoples of the republic (the main ethnic group) must have a more or less majority in population. Pretty simple, and this rule I follow. 3) The proposed republic is not to be surrounded by other republics of the USSR, to help secure itself in the event of secession. This rule I find total BS, and I don't follow it at all. Both because this would prevent many republics (Tatarstan for one) from gaining republican status, but the idea of secession in any federation seems funny to me.
    ASSRs like Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Chechnya, and a united Ossetia (just to name a few) would make excellent republics. ASSRs like Komi, Tuva, and Karelia would make bad republics, either because the Russians would rule them more than in other republics, or their population is too sparse. It was because of this that the Karelo-Finnic SSR was a short-lived republic. In many cases, I am sure many of the proclaimed SSRs would have settled for greater sovereignty in their autonomy within Russia, while the others would be welcomed as full republics.
  3. As for the self-proclaimed Republics like the Ural Republic, I feel they were created more out of equality from within the smaller Russian Federation. But just like OTL, I believe these proclaimed republics would not fair too well, and may only stand as a declaration for reforms within Russia itself.
  4. As for the economic troubles, I believe they would be much less severe than OTL. In fact, with the USSR remaining in tacked, the standard of living would be much better for the republics during the 90s. Granted, it wouldn't be paradise, but it would be much better than OTL. So again, the ideas of creating more SSRs would not fair too well. I believe the communist party would still play an important role in the USSR. In fact, this "red belt" (which I have never heard about before, but I am going to read more about) may be bigger. But in the end, the USSR continues to be a multi-party state, not a single-party state.
  5. As for the Ukraine splitting off, I would hope not and would like to avoid this. Just like for Yeltsin in TTL, his political views would be considered too "radical" in comparison to Gorbachev's reforms. I would believe that the Ukraine would never elect someone like Yushchenko or Tymoshenko, as they would also be considered too "radical." But yes, I have read several timelines where the Ukraine is split, bit I'd prefer to leave the Ukraine as a whole unless it becomes apparent that it would not work.
Hope this will help out. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:59, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
1)Yes, but only Southern Cossaks. In Cossak Union would be 6 republiks:Batalpashinsk, Zelenchuk-Urup, Armavir, Upper Kuban, Don and Terek (with Sunzha region of Chechnya) all of them was proclaimed till 1991
2) I meen just Tatarstan, Chechnya, Bashcortostan + Saha and Tuva, Chercessya and mb united Karachai-Balkaria
4) In my mind, USSR was multy-party state since 1990.. (CPSU, Democratic Union, CRC, LDPSS...)
5) And what do you think about Crimea?

I am really, really interested in adding Cossackia. However, I can't find any links to back your claims. Do you have any links to the proposal, I would love to back the information up for myself. I have already made Yakutia (Sakha) as a republic, because its population is over 900,000, and has a close majority of Yakuts. As for Tuva, it has a good majority of Tuvans, but has a population smaller than Wyoming. Granted, I agree that Tuva should become a republic, but statistically it wouldn't be sound. As for the Crimea, if you are talking about republican status, I think not. Despite the fact that it was once home to the Crimean Tatars, the population is primarily Russian today. Only if all of the Ukraine were to leave the Union would I agree to allow the Crimea to become a republic. But as I mentioned before, I will not agree on splitting up the Ukraine unless it is completely justifiable for this timeline. Even if it were to be split up, the Crimea would be part of an "East Ukrainian State." I believe it gaining the status of autonomous republic (as in OTL) would suit the Crimeans just fine.

Also, thank you so much for the flags. I never saw them before. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:49, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

links about Cossakia? Please, at least - Верхняя Кубань from Russian Wikipedia.

Ooh la la! I am hooked already. Do you know of any maps of this proposed republic, or have any knowledge of their borders? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:07, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but only this variant (photo from Arthur Tsutsiev’s “Atlas of ethno-political history of the Caucasus”). Proposals of that times.

1) Nogai autonomy proposal

2) Kabarda (separated from Balkaria) + part of Northen Ossetia

3) Balkaria (separated from Kabarda)

4) Karachay

5) Nothern Ossetia

6) Chechnya

7) Ingushetia (+ part of Nothern Ossetia)

8) Kumyk autonomy proposal

9) Lesser Dagestan (Avar- Dargin authonomy)

10) Lezgin autonomy proposal

11) Cossak Union proposal

12) Talish autonomy proposal

13) Borchalo Armenian autonomy proposal

14) Javakheti Azerbaijan autonomy proposal

15) Nagorny Karabah

16) Abkhazia

17) Southern Ossetia

18) Ajaria

19) Shapsug autonomy proposal

20) Circassian- Abaza autonomy proposal

21) Adygea

22) Nakhichevan


Wow, thank you so much for the map. It really helped me out. I guess you would call this dumb luck, but I found that same image online [1]. Do you own the book and scanned it? (just curious) But anyway, I have gone threw the borders and ideas, and I think I came up with a border that I can agree with. Here;s what I have:

  • Cossaskia: The proposed border of Cossackia seems to be very bad IMHO. Granted, Kuban Republic still remains in the Krasnodar Krai, and the Don Republic remains in the Rostov Oblast. But the Terek region no longer exists, divided between Stavropol and the many republics in the south. I find that Cossackia gaining all lost territory is impossible, while only gaining such a small stretch of land back is just pointless. Since Rostov and Krasnodar are going to go to the Cossacks, why not just let them have Stavropol as well? History has shown (especially in the USSR) that regions have been moved to other republic, even though it may seem weird. Russia gave the Crimea to the Ukraine and gave its half of Karelia to help form the Karelo-Finnic SSR. So why not let the Cossacks have all of this Krai. I believe I can also justify this for the TL. The Cossacks also claimed regions in Chechnya and Dagestan. I believe this (in the first place) is a bad idea. With the Chechens threatening to declare independence, I think Gorbachev would want to "butter up" the Chechens, preventing war and a second collapse. I still believe Chechnya would be the first new republic to form out of Russia, so the republic itself would have had say in the Supreme Soviet. I dough they would have been willing to give up any part of their land to the Slavs. Though Dagestan wouldn't have been as resistant, I believe it should be left out. So perhaps Moscow would offer all of the Stavropol Krai, in exchange that they drop their claims in Chechnya and Dagestan.
  • Dagestan: I had no idea that the people of Dagestan wanted to divide the region. However, I believe this would not happen. Looking at the population of the many peoples, none of them hold enough to stabilize a new republic on their own. Here is a good example of where the saying "united we stand, divided we fall" applies outside the US. However, I see nothing wrong with these regions gaining autonomy. Maybe Dagestan would go the way as the Transcaucasus did in the early years of the USSR. Dagestan would become a "Federation of Dagestan;" with Kumykia, Lezgia, and Nogaistan becoming autonomous republic. The remaining portions (you call it "Lesser Dagestan") would not gain full autonomy, but would act as the main body within the Dagestani Federation. Azerbaijan may be willing to give over its Lezgi regions in exchange for the Azeri region within Dagestan, and since Stavropol is going to Cossackia, why not give the Nogai region to Nogaistan.
  • Circassia: I still believe there should be a Circassia in TTL. Granted, it would be smaller than my optimistic proposal, but there would still be one. I need to go threw and see what its population would be, but currently it could either become a full republic, or become an "Autonomous Federation" within Cossackia.
  • Karachay-Balkaria: I support the idea of a united Karachay-Balkaria. Do you have any idea if they intended to make a singular name for them as a united people?

Everything else is pretty much self explanatory. Ossetia agrees to hand over its northern regions in exchange to be united with the south, Kabardia would also agree to hand over its parts in the north. What do you think? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 22:30, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

1) About Circassia - I think, united republic can be only Union republic in USSR. Otherwise, why join?

2)Karachay-Balkaria. May be, such as Ossetia change this name to Alania, this republic would named "Kumania" (this people believe polovtsi (kumans) their ancestors.

3) Chechnya. United with Ingushetia only if there will be no Johar Dudayev, with his slogan Татары в Казань, русские в Рязань, ингуши в Назрань! I think new Checheno-Ingushetia can named Vainakhia - so that no one was hurt not.

4) Dagestan. You wariant is really possible. But I can not imagine, how it flag will look like? OTL flag is in reality flag of Russia,only white band, which including symbolizes Orthodoxy, changed to green - colour of Islam.

Thank you so much for your feedback. Vainakhia and Kumania? I have never heard those names, but I like them. I know North Ossetia wanted to name themselves Alania, but would the south be into that? Because in TTL, South Ossetia would have been admitted first, with the north being transferred from Russia to the south. Personally, I like the name "Ossetia" better than Alania. And if all these republics are going to be renamed, than that may leave open the possibility of Tatarstan renaming itself "Bulgaristan." Next, I have been rethinking the republics of the USSR. I may be willing to loosen the criteria even more. Here is a map I made to show my opinion of the republics of Russia:
  • Red republics I am firmly denying any republican status. Their populations are primarily Russian. These will remain autonomous republics within Russia (or such)
  • Yellow republics I may be open to allowing. They may have very low populations, but are primarily their titular peoples. Mari El has more Russians, but the divide is almost half. (Russians:47%; Mari:42%)
  • Light blue republics I am semi-open to. Their populations are primarily Russian, but the divide between the Russian population and the titular population is close enough for me.
  • Green republics meet all the criteria for me, and have already been added.
  • The black ones are the regions that are going to need to be recalculated before I can decide what is good for them.

Circassia I am going to have too take a good look at before I make a decision. I agree that what is the point in uniting if they are not a republic. But I personally don't like the idea of having a republic made of enclaves. This was the main reason I made Gagauzia claim more regions of Moldova. But if any of these Circassian enclaves is meet my criteria, than none of them can be an AR. So for me, its either all or none. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:35, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of Dagestan (New Union).svg
Just making an update. Looking at the Parade of Sovereignties map, it looks like that the proposed "Shapsugsky National District" seemed more unlikely than the other three Circassian regions. Maybe this proposed district would not hold true here, but the other "republics" would unite to form a Circassian Federation. Sorry, I am OCD, and I am not a big fan of enclaves (as said above). And before I forget it again, I have been using the proposed yellow-blue-yellow-blue flag that may or may not have been proposed for Dagestan. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:23, April 28, 2011 (UTC)


Declares SSR status in OTL:

1) Mari SSR – Mari EL – October 1990

2) Kadarda-Balkaria SSR – January 1991

3) Mordvin SSR - December 1990

4) Tatar SSR – August 1990

5) Altai SSR – July 1991

6) Dagestan SSR – May 1991

7) Komi SSR – August 1990

8) Yakut SSR – September 1990

9) Soviet Republic of Tuva - December 1990

10) Chechen-Ingush Republic – November 1990, Chechen Republic – July 1991

11) Bashkir SSR – October 1990

12) Karachai-Cherkes SSR – November 1990 (as part of RSFSR)

13) Northern Ossetia SSR – July 1990 (as part of RSFSR)

14) Chuvash republic – October 1990

15) South Ossetia Soviet Democratic Republic – October 1990

16) Pridnestrovian Moldavian SSR – October 1990

17) Gagauz republic – August 1990

Well actually, all the ASSRs had some form of declaration of sovereignty (not just the ones you made mention to). I am getting pretty annoyed on trying to make a definition on what is an what isn't a republic. Why not just go all the way. All the autonomous republics will become union republics. The other autonomous enteties would either remain autonomous, or may become republics (depending on their population). I see nothing really wrong with this, and this would be the only way that these regions could really grow. Karelia can also regain its former status as a union republic. I have some interesting ideas, maybe Karelia could re-adopt their former KFSSR flag. Now I am getting excited. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:52, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Flag and coat of arms proposals

Here is some heraldic proposals of early 1990-s

I have an idea about the State Symbols of the republics. The main image for imitation in the past during the Perestroika times was pre-Stalin USSR of 1920-s. I like an idea that in New Union can be restored some flags and emblems from that times.


Really, I can't understand, how VVP (Vladimir Putin) could be USSR president in this TL. OTL he was, eventually, promoted worker from Yeltsin's entourage. He was appointed as successor in 1999, becaurse there was Second Chechen war, and Russia need hard leader to win. But in NU TL was neither Yeltsin no this war.

It may be truism, but the post-Soviet governments passed 3 stages: dissidents - Stanislav Shushkevich, Abulfaz Elchibey, Zviad Gamsakhurdia (in Russia thre was ni this stage, becaurse Andrey Saharov died in 1989); the old Soviet nomenklatura - Yeltsin, Kuchma, Aliyev, Shevardnadze; and new semi-nationalistic leaders - Putin, Yushchenko, Saakashvili. And what would be in NU TL?

Hmm... you got me there. I created this timeline with the basic information, and I have not gotten around to looking at the leaders. I guess the USSR would have leaders who are more or less in sync with Gorbachev. Where as people like Yeltsin and Yushchenko would be considered too radical. I always though of Putin being (though nationalist) more or less pro-Soviet and a "Soviet nationalist." If you have any suggestions for new Presidential candidates, I would love to hear the. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:16, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Here are a couple of people who may be good presidents.

That's what I got. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:46, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

I think about presidential elections in USSR.

1) 1995. It will be, in my opinion, the “last parade of nationalists”.

Candidates – in the Union level

a) Nikolai Ryzhkov - CPSU

b) Vladimir Bukovsky – DU (I think that Democratic candidate from former dissidents would be appropriate in situation, when DU is still in opposition)

c) Alexander Lebed - CRC

d) Vladimir Zhirinovsky – LDPSU


a) Boris Nemtsov - DU

b) Alexander Rutskoy – DCP (Russian filial of CPSU)


a) Ruslan Khasbulatov – CPSU

b) Johar Dudayev – Union of Chechen People

To be continued…


Some days ago Gorbachev said in an interview to the russian Россия 1 channel wanted to step down as president after the signing of New Union Treaty. At the interim president position he offered Yeltsin a temporary prime minister - Nazarbayev


Really? Do you have a link to the interview, or something like that. I would love to see it. I just watched an interview in which Gorby talked about the failed coup. [2]. I am moving this discussion to a new section (so look below for more responses). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:22, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
No, it is not that video. And I can't find that. Really, I can't imagine Yeltsin as head of USSR - whis his project of radical market reforms he will fight against not only Rutskoy...

Major updates for May 2011

After days of discussion with 2303, I believe we will be witnessing a major change and updating for the New Union timeline during May 2011. The new changes takes into account 2303s understandings of the Parade of Sovereignties and the role of communism and non-nationalism within the Soviet Union.

Here are a list of changes that will be taken into account:

  • New Republics: The Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics is a federated state made up of [about] ~30 republics and one federal city. Each republic runs as a sovereign nation, but have agreed to united under a joint and federal government, legislature, president, currency, and foreign relations. Including the nine republics which remained in the Union after glasnost and perestroika (as well as the already canon republics), several of the new republics include:
    • Circassia: The "Circassian Federation" is a republic made up of three Circassian enclaves. The enclaves include the Republic of Adygea, the Kabardian regions of Kabardino-Balkaria, and the Cherkessian region of Karachay-Cherkessia. The republic may also include the Shapsug regions on the Black Sea, but I have not made a decision as of yet.
    • Alania: The united "Republic of Alania," or better known in OTL as Karachay-Balkaria, is the united republic of the Karachays and the Balkars. I have gone across the internet, and found many sources claiming "Alania" as a good name for the united republic. It should be noted that North Ossetia is officially named the "Republic of North Ossetia-Alania." As far as I can tell, Alania is primarily favored by the north Ossetians, and not necessarily the south Ossetians. I have already made canon that South Ossetia would be the center of TTL Republic of Ossetia. SO would have been admitted into the Union first, with the Ossetian unification happening when Russia agrees to transfer the north to the south. So in that case, Alania would be free for the Karachay-Balkars.
    • Vainakhia: The "People's Republic of Vainakhia" is actually the reformed government of the formerly proclaimed Chehen-Ingush SSR. With the August Coup not happening, the radical rise of Chehcen nationalism would not take place. Though Chechnya would not become peaceful over night, it would eventually agree on keeping a united government with the Ingush. It was proposed to rename the republic to "Vainakhia," with comes from a historical group that make up modern day Chehcens and Ingush.
    • Cossackia: The Cossacks have played an important role in Russian history. After years of simply claiming them to be Russians, the USSR agrees to define the Cossacks as their own people, and allowing them their own republic. The Rostov Oblast (Don Cossacks), the Krasnodar Krai (Kuban Oblasts), and the Stavropol Krai (Semi-Terek Cossacks) were transferred to the newly formed "Union of Cossack Republics." I have not made any of the following official, or have I even checked for accuracy, but it may be possible that the Crimea neighboring oblasts of the Ukraine may become part of this new republic. But no promises, so consider this as speculative.
    • Border Changes: I want to make it clear for the definitions above. There will be NO border changes to the Caucasian republics in TTL (as in OTL). The only changes will be that Karachay-Cherkessia and Kabardino-Balkaria will be divided into their basic components. The proposed Cossack region of Karahchay-Cherkessia (as well as other Cossack proposals in the region) would be "dropped" from the proposed Cossack state after Russia agrees to allow full Cossack sovereignty on the Stavropol Krai (which would add more area for Cossackia than would the other proposals put together). Plus this makes it easier for me to map out, and who says life is always fair.
    • Along with the key changes above, Kalmykia, Karelia, Komia, Mari El, Mordova, Udmurtia, Tuva, and Buryatia will be added as republics. Altai and Khakassia are currently in question by me. I may make them republics, but since the two did not gain autonomous republic status until the parade of sovereignties, it may be easier (and more likely) that these two may simply remain autonomous republics within Russia.
    • I am also going to be "fudging" the populations of may of the new republics over the next decades from the POD to now. With these republics now having the right to decide their economies and such, who's to say that OTL censuses would be accurate for TTL. So many of the republics would have population growths in TTL. Though not population BOOMS, but you get the idea.
  • The Communist Party may play a more important role in the USSR than I have been saying prior. I remember reading a quote which describes the differences between Soviet communism and Chinese communism, and their reforms. It was something like... "The Soviets were willing to keep communism, but loose the totalitarianism; while the Chinese were willing to loose the communism, but keep the totalitarianism." Though not exactly correct, it is a good way to summarize it. I still need to think and study, but maybe Gorbachev would remain in the CPSU during his terms as President, allowing more reforms in the party. The next President after Gorbachev (see below) may or may not be a member of the Communist Party. There would be a larger "Red Belt" in the region than OTL. The Red Belt is a term used to describes the primarily communist regions within OTL Russia.
  • 2303 made it clear to me that Putin seemed like a bad idea to be President of the Soviet Union. His ideals are more in line with Russian nationalism. After thinking about it, I agree. Same goes with other politicians in the CIS today, in which there would be a new lineup of Presidents and so on. Though I have no idea at the present, it would be pretty interesting.

None of this has been made canon yet. However, I believe I may begin making many (if not all) of these canon during the first week of May. I want to leave open any corrections or last minute suggestions. Otherwise, I am really looking forward to this. Also, sorry for sounding outright in my speech, I have had a LONG day today, you know what I mean ;P --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:52, April 30, 2011 (UTC)


File:Chukchia and Nenetsia.svg

If all of the ASSRs are going to be upgraded to full SSRs (I love abbreviations), than I believe we are going to have to also question on even more republics. With the parade of sovereignties having this kind of affect on Russia, and no Putin or semi-nationalist politicians in power, I believe we may see more autonomous regions declaring upgrading or even full republican status, or even [re]unification of more regions.

Here is a quick map I made to show what I mean. In recent years, Russia has gone threw steps to unify many of the federal subjects into larger (less autonomous) krais (you can read more about that here). But with Gorbachev remaining in power, and the sovereignty movements being successful, how is to say that Buryatia wouldn't want to have the Agin-Buryat Okrug and the Ust-Orda Buryat Okrug reunited into a Greater Buryatia, or Komia wanting to reunite with the Komi-Permyak Okrug to create a Greater Komia. I also believe (in possibility) the Chukchi okrugs may unit to form a Chukchia, the Nenets may unite to form a Greater Nenetsia, while Evenkia, Khantia-Mansia, and the Jewish AO may request similar upgrades.

My real question is what would these regions become? Would they remain in Russia as ASSRs, or request full republican status. Not too sure at the percent, but I believe these regions would be more happy to remain in Russia. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:34, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

1) Greater Buryatia - very poussible, I think. As SSR. But is one problem - some Buryat nationalists want to unite whis Mongolia...

2) Greater Komi - I don't know any precedent.. but TTL may be.

3)Nenetsia - from Nenetsia+Yamal+Taimyr may create VERY BIG thinly populated but VERY RICH region (oil, nikel...). Economic power will fully provide status SSR.

4) Chukotka+Koryakia? WHY? I think they can't unite by definition....

I wouldn't worry to much about Mongolian nationalism. A greater Komia seemed like an interesting idea. Not too sure now if Nenetsia would be allowed republican status, but if it is that rich in resources, than maybe we could see a population boom in TTL. The reason I though about Chukotka and Koryakia uniting into Chukchia is because (ethnically) the two regions are similar. Similar to how the Circassians united, this may be a way for them to gain republican status. I also though about it because of another timeline I read. What do you think about the other regions? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:07, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
1))In contrast to the Circassians, the Chukchi and Koryak was no such unionist movement. And this people are predominantly assimilated - only third of the Koryak speaks native languages
2)Demographic boom in Nenetsia is hardly possible. It is a country where, except for mushrooms and berries do not grow nothing. So, most of the food products they have brought from Central Russia.
3) Khanty-Mansi - same as Nenetsia
4)Evenkia - poor, thinly populated (17000 in 2006) and cold region. Maximum ASSR.
5)Jewish Autonomous Region - national region only for name (4% Jews in 1989, 1,2% now) Why should they raise their status?
And - about first map - Moscow in russian is not Федеральный город, but Город Союзного Подчинения

Новая карта.

I think I am now clear and ready to make canon soon. The USSR will be a federated state of 31 republics and one Union City. All of the ASSrs will be upgraded to SSRs, while the other autonomous regions will simply be upgraded to ASSRs (including Altai, Khakassia, and some of areas I made mention above). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:12, April 30, 2011 (UTC)


While looking at Indian politics for annother TL I came across the fact that the Indian Comunist Party (Marxist) has long been the third or fourth major player in Indian politics. I was wondering that in light of the reformation they might stand a better chance at taking power. In 1991 they came fourth in the elections but at the time India was suffering an economic crisis but I was wondering if the example Soviet Communism without Tolatitarianism might swing votes in favour of them and allow them to take power leading to a much closer relationship with the USSR at least as strong as that between India and Russia today. Otherwise I find it unlikely that the relationship would be anywhere close enough for them to conduct military exercises (GOASIE). Thoughts plz?Vegas adict 18:44, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Well from what I understand, India had a pro-Soviet feel during the Cold War. I can't really see how India would move further away from the Soviet Union in TTL, especially if Pakistan intervenes in Afghanistan. But in the long run, I am not really an expert on Indian politics. But if you feel that the ICP may have a better chance in TTL, than I see no trouble with that at all. As long as it doesn't turn India into a single-party state. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 20:31, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

I could see them getting more votes, but them actually coming to power is unrealistic. Lordganon 23:09, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Up until about 2004 yes but they came third in 2004 and with extra votes in this TL it might gain enough to lead the Left-Wing coalition that ended up in charge.Vegas adict 16:07, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Just not realistic. The entire Left Front, which is the communist-led bloc, only got about 8%, with the two communist parties themselves getting about 7 out of that 8 percent. The Congress party, leader of the left-center United Progressive Alliance, got about 27% of the vote. It is virtually impossible for the Communists to gain that much ground, especially since outside of Northeastern India, and a single Southern state, they don't get many votes. Lordganon 06:28, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

I supposeVegas adict 17:53, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

U guys need the help of an Indian here. "Que Me". India was very pro-Soviet in the Cold War and most of India's Millitary arms are bought from Russia to this day. However Communists coming to power is not possible. However, in this TL, Russia might try and meditate talks between India and Pakistan as well as Bangladesh. Eventually the two governments could use the example of Russia for unification. India is not a small country, although it would be dwarfed by Russia, India plays a role in Asia as well as the rest of the world.

The Crimea made my brain explode!!

Now is the perfect time for you all to take advantage of my mental deficiencies and pudding pudding pudding...

No seriously, I am beginning to get really frustrated with the republics of the USSR. I have gotten two requests to make the Crimea its own republic, and I am beginning to loose my mind. The Crimea was histrionically the home of the Crimean Tatars, but today there are more Russians and Ukrainians in the Crimea than there are Tatars. It is confusing the sh** out of me, and we need to come up with a consensus right now. Is the USSR going to be divided by ethnics, demographics, or both?

Personally, I love the idea of adding the Crimea as a republic. IMHO, the more the merrier. But I also hate the idea of leaving many regions out if there isn't a good enough reason. I think I may have to rethink what this new union really is. I keep thinking of it as an EU-like entity, when it should continue to be a US-like entity. I have also taken a lot of historical similarities from the proposed United States of Greater Austria. Had it been successful, the Austro-Hungarian Empire would have become a federation of three German states, two Hungarian states, two Italian states, as well as states for the Slovens, the [Serbo-]Croatians, the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians, Romanians, and not to mention the many German autonomous enclaves. In short, if they could have been divided into multiple ethnic state, why am I keeping the USSR under a membership basis?

So I believe we need to come to a consensus with the remaining autonomous regions before we go on any further. Like I said, I personally love the idea of adding new republics. So for the time being, I am proposing new republics of the USSR. They are:

  • Altai: I can support it.
  • Artsakh: Also known as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The USSR and Armenia would come to a peace agreement on the region early on, leaving the region under Soviet control and allowing them their continued autonomy. They may parlay their continuation in the USSR by being upgraded into a full republic. They could also become the Pridnestrovie of the region, acting as the successor state of the Armenian SSR.
  • Federation of the Ob: Or something along that name. It would be a federation between the sparsely populated regions of Evenkia, Khantia-Mansia, Nenetsia, Taymyria, and Yamalia. I originally proposed combining the Nenets regions into a Greater Nenetsia (which I do not believe was ever proposed), but maybe it would be better for them all if they unite into a single union republic, becoming something like the Dagestan of the region, or something like the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People's Region of Ethiopia. The majority of the ethnic groups represented are part of the Uralic family, while the other is Altic. I named the region after the Gulf of Ob and the Ob River, which dominates the coastal region of this republic. But this is only a temporary name. Anybody got any suggestions?
  • Chukotka/Chukchia: My proposed republic which unites Chukotka and Koryakia. The reason I continue to propose uniting the two regions is simple, they are both Chukotko-Kamchatkan peoples. If they are anything like the Nenets or the Circassians, this is a clear case of the Russians dividing them to conquer them. The peoples were united with Yakuts during the civil war, and I'm also a big fan of another incarnation of this state. If you guys can accept a united Nenetsia, why not a united Chukchia?
  • Crimea: I support it.
  • Jewish AO: Very, very interesting IMO. Read this and you get what I mean. 2303 made mention that it is only a national region, but I somewhat support it becoming a republic. The Jewish have gone threw hell (especially by the Soviets, let alone the Nazis). Why not give them a second "homeland"? My only dilemma about it would be the name?
  • Khakassia: I would support it.
  • Talyshistan: It would be the proposed Talysh-Mughan Autonomous Republic. In OTL, it formed out of bad tensions in Baku after independence, but maybe it could form peacefully.

If I am missing any region, please let me know. I would really appreciate any and all comments. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:51, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if you were thinking about adding Kalmykia as one or not, but those people are so different from those around them that is makes a ton of sense.

Altai might be possible, but the Russians have a clear majority here, so I find it unlikely.

Artsakh makes total sense. Would prevent a ton of squabbling too.

Ob is a good idea, though definitely not as a name. I really can;t think of another, mind.

Chukotka/Chukchia is good. Run with it.

Making the Jewish region a republic is a bad idea. The amount of Jews actually living there today otl is 1.2% of the population, and it has never been more than 16% of it (and that was around WWII). Just doesn't work.

Khakassia and Talyshistan are good.

Now, the Crimean region is a tad more delicate. Like many areas in the Western USSR with many people of a different nationality than the main one in that republic, Stalin deported a massive number of them to Siberia. They are returning, ever since they were allowed to do so, in fairly large numbers (something which is causing great disputes, obviously). With how this TL is, they'd be doing it with support. It's perfectly reasonable for them to have their own Republic.

Lordganon 03:55, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Thought I'd pipe in. I agree with LG about the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. Looks tempting, but it really won't constitute a republic. There are only about 3,000 Jews left lol. I would also suggest Tuva, having been independent for a notable, and having a majority population of 77% Tuvans. Not only that but it would help preserve the culture and encourage throat singing lol. Also I agree on Kalmykia, even though it's been diluted a bit by Russian culture, it is still nothing like its surroundings. Both Tuva and Kalmykia are pretty depopulated, but compared to other areas they're culturally rich and deserve a place as SSRs. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:03, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

And, like with Crimea, the Tuvans and Kalmykians - and those two are far from the only ones - have substantial populations in Siberia, the Urals, etc. that have been returning to their homelands since the Soviet Government let them.

Kalmykia, for instance, was about 75% Kalmyk in 1926. By the start of WWII, due to Stalin and what amounted to colonization by Russians, this had become 49%. Reaching a low of 35% in 1959, after the deportations, by 1989 it had recovered to 45%, as they had been allowed to come back, though without support. Today, it is 53%, a definite majority.

The same principle has been seen in the majority of Autonomous areas, ASSRs, etc. west of the Urals, and even somewhat beyond.

Lordganon 06:35, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I already added Kalmykia and Tuva as republics. In fact, I have upgraded every autonomous regions to a republic, but I excluded the ones I made mention above. The map I made above shows the republics that I have already agreed to allow. I agree, many of them have a Russian majority, but many continue to be persistent that they become republics. Karelia is somewhat a good example. It was once a republic of the USSR (see the Karelo-Finnish SSR), downgraded, and is now the Republic of Karelia within Russia. Only Nakchivan, Balita (the Kaliningrad Oblast), and Gorno-Badakhshan I have left out, because their autonomy is primarily there because of their locations and not because of ethnic populations or history.

So from what I hear, the consensus is:

  • Altai
  • Artsakh
  • Chukchia
  • Crimea
  • Khakassia
  • "Ob"
  • Talyshistan
  • Jewish Autonomous Oblast

--NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:17, May 5, 2011 (UTC)


Republics "almost" canon.

Update: I am making a quick update to my statement before. I have decided to unite the three Nenets states as one Nenetsia, leaving Yugra and Evenkia out of any federation. Yugra shows enough population and economy to become a republic on its own right. As for Evenkia, its population is very, very, very low. I think they would be better off continuing their autonomy. I made a new map showing the republics as of now. Evenkia and the Jewish AO remain autonomous entities within Russia. What do you all think? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:16, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
1) Crimea is Russian or Tatar or mixed republic? Becaurse there are not so mane Tatars there, I think that will be better to create Tatar AR in Crimean SSR
2) I' m not agree with united Chukotka-Koryakia. I simply can't afford to provide such thing.
3) Nenetsia and Yugra - I agree.
4) Talishstan - better for it to be AR in Azerbaijan
With Crimea, as with virtually each and every minority region west of the Urals, there were massive deportations at the end of/during WWII. Those people have been returning to those areas ever since, and long clamored for it, politically. There's also no set area in the Crimea where the Tartars are. With the setup in this ATL, they definitely would be getting some support, unlike otl. It makes sense, and the Russians living there would agree with the logic too. Lordganon 06:14, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
I now about deportations. But OTL the creation of the ARC in 1990-1991 (before POD) has gone into the context of exactly Russian autonomy in Ukraine, and its first president Yuri Meshkov was from party with the telling name Russian Bloc. May be TTL Crimea will be mixed republic, in which all the peoples who inhabit it (Russians, Tatars, Karaites, Greeks and Armenians have equal status. 2303

IMO, it should be either all or none. At this point in history, the Crimea becoming a republic is just as logical as making Komia or Buryatia a full republic. But give them time to grow, and you never know what could happen. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:47, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama Bin Laden

Recommendations for New Union Universe version of Osama bin Laden's death: A good way to have this universe's version of the death of Osama Bin Ladin is this: A joint Team of US Navy Seals and Soviet Spetsnaz breaks in Osama Bin Laden's hideout, executes the terrorist leader, and takes custody of his body. US President John Kerry wanted to bury Bin Laden's body at sea with no photos going public. However Soviet President Medvedev wants to bring his body to Moscow. So the Spetsnaz are ordered to move the body to the Soviet Union. The SEALs decides not to interfer since they don't personally agree with President Kerry's decision. Experiment632 05:34, May 7, 2011 (UTC)experiment632

Well two things. First off, Medvedev will no longer be leader of the Soviet Union for this timeline. In short, Putin and Medvedev would not fit the political background of the USSR in TTL, and will be replaced with different leaders (ones who are [more or less] in sync with Gorbachev). I like the idea of a joint Seals and Spetsnaz mission, but I am still not too sure about bin Laden in TTL. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 19:15, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Did 9/11 even happen in this timeline? And whats all that stuff about Al Qaeda being in sudan? 22:38, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Yes 9/11 happens in America and i read somewhere in this TL that 9/11 style attacks happen on the Russian Union aswell. However, his base of operations is Somalia in this timeline. It is in the page about the timeline of the New Union. 20:56, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

That's the same idea I had! To find my story for Bin Laden's death, go to Other Suggestions section and find my story. Hope you enjoy. And if it is approved, I might even make a page of it!] 21:46, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Leningrad Compromise

I remember this idea I had long ago, and maybe it could help us out here. I called it the Leningrad Compromise. It would have been an agreement between Russia and its many autonomous republics on the future of their status. The agreements as part of the compromise were something like:

  1. Russia will recognize the sovereignty and secession of all the ASSRs (as defined by the 1989 census) within Russia's jurisdiction. This would mean that Altai and Khakassia would not be recognized.
  2. The remaining autonomous areas within Russia would be allowed to upgrade their autonomy to full ASSR (if they so desire).
  3. An agreement would be made on a presage and final criteria for what constitutes a republic of the USSR.

That's the rough description, but I think it could work out for this. So with this, the list of republics would be:

  1. Abkhazia
  2. Alania (Karachay-Balkaria)
  3. Artsakh (would become a republic as part of a treaty with Armenia to prevent war)
  4. Azerbaijan
  5. Bashkortostan
  6. Belorussia (Belarus)
  7. Buryatia
  8. Chuvashia
  9. Circassia
  10. Cossackia
  11. Crimea? (maybe or maybe not)
  12. Dagestan
  13. Gagauzia
  14. Kalmykia
  15. Karakalpakstan
  16. Karelia
  17. Kazakhstan
  18. Komia
  19. Kyrgyzstan
  20. Mari El
  21. Mordovia
  22. Ossetia
  23. Pridnestrovie (Transnistria)
  24. Russia
  25. Tajikistan
  26. Tatarstan
  27. Turkmenistan
  28. Tuva
  29. Udmurtia
  30. Ukraine
  31. Uzbekistan
  32. Vainakhia (Checheno-Ingushetia)
  33. Yakutia

The remaining regions would be allowed to raise their autonomous status if they so wished.

The criteria I propose for future republics would be something along the lines of:

  • The proposed republic must have a population no less than half a million people (500,000).
  • The proposed republic must have a titular population make up (at the least) 1/4 the population.

As for the Crimea, I think we need to ask the question... What would the Crimea do? The Crimea was able to regain its ASSR status in OTL (prior to the POD). With the Ukraine remaining in the USSR (if not more reluctant), would the Crimeans really feel threatened by the Ukrainians that they would push for republican status in the early years? However, as I believe would play an important role in the development of the republics in TTL, Soviet optimism may lead to a boom in the Crimean Tatar population. When I mean "boom," I don't mean that the population would be fixed over night, but that the possibility that more Tatars return to the Crimea. With the (Volga) Tatars also gaining their own republic, maybe the population would grow more in the Crimean favor. OTL's Tatar population is currently 12% the population. Maybe TTL we could see an increase to (at the most) 25% the population. That seems like a possibility. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:26, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

I like the list, and the new criteria.

Crimea has always been a somewhat special case. Not only do you have the Tartars - who, as you say, are likely now able to return in much larger numbers (government support, no international boundary to cross, etc) than otl. Not only that, but the Russian population on that peninsula is a massive majority, with only a couple Ukrainian districts coming close. And, if you factor in the Tartars making up half of the non-Russians, the number of Ukrainian speakers is only in the area of 10% otl, which wouldn't change too much atl. Even in the two regions of the Eastern Ukraine with mostly Russian-speakers there's at least 25% that speak Ukrainian. Between the Tartars and the Russians, having its own region makes sense. And, if nothing else, you can also factor in the Black Sea Fleet into this, as it would have a say in the matter too, I'm sure.

Lordganon 23:32, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

More Sh** to finalize

Comrades, how are you? I am happy that the new changes are about canon. I just want to also make a few more changes to the timeline, nothing really major, but yeah. Here they are:

  • The Kuril dispute between Japan and the USSR WILL be settled in TTL. However, neither the Soviet definition or the Japanese definition will become the final border. I have decided that Japan will gain Kunashir, Shikotan, and Habomai; with the Soviets continuing to have control over Iturup. Why this border?
    • I believe the fact that Japan gaining any of these islands would be a great compromise for for the Japanese, leading to total peace between the Union and the Empire.
    • The northern most island (Iturup) has a Soviet base on it, I am not too sure that they would want to give it up.
    • Probably the most likely reason for this border change... area. Russia has divided the southern three islands as their own district within the Sakhalin Oblast. While the northern most is combined with other islands. Call me lazy, but I like this definition better.
  • Seeing as Putin is too nationalist to be President of the USSR, I believe I will be changing it so Nikolai Ryzhkov will succeed Gorbachev. As for who will succeed him, I can't say at the moment. I think Ryzhkov makes a good candidate for President.

Those are the only two I can think of at the moment. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:20, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

He, or Alexander Rutskoi, leader of fraction "Communists for the Democracy". He was wery popular in early 1990-s/ And, I think, that Gobachev will loose the 1995 elections.. and Rutskoi succeed him ~2303
I never though about Rutskoy. But as for him winning the election in 1995, I say not. With the USSR getting better by 1995, Gorbachev would be reelected for a final term. I do like the idea of there being more presidents. Maybe Gorbachev would declare not to run for reeletion in 1995, allowing Rutskoy to win. "Communists for Democracy," I remember reading about this, but I never know Rutskoy was in it. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:26, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Rutskoy Alexander. Born in 1947. Major General of Aviation (1991). He fought in Afghanistan. Hero of the Soviet Union (1988). In 1990, Rutskoy was elected deputy of the RSFSR. During the III Congress of People's Deputies (March 31, 1991) Rutskoy announced the creation of the parliamentary group "Communists for Democracy”, which support Yeltsin. June 12, 1991 Rutskoy was elected vice-president of the RSFSR in conjunction with Yeltsin. In July 1991 he became established on the basis of the "Communists for Democracy" Democratic Party of Communists. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union went into opposition to Yeltsin. Collapse of the Soviet Union turned him from a social democrat in a nationalist, in which quality he played in 1993 and later.


Looks good to me, Nuke. Lordganon 07:00, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Больше! Больше! Больше!

I Gotses some more idears! Excuse the grammar, but I am in a silly and good mood at the moment. Here are some of those ideas.

  • Armenian-Soviet friendship: I made a poll weeks ago on whether Armenia would rejoin the USSR. Though the votes seemed to favor the idea (5 out of 7 agree), I want to say that it will not happen for this timeline. However, the idea I have though of instead may be more interesting. Instead of becoming a republic again, Armenia will become a greater ally for the USSR. If anybody has ever seen Hetalia, my idea for Armenia would like OTL Belarus (but less intense and less creepy XD). Armenia would be a big ally of the USSR, and vice versa. The ideas of reunification are talked about in politics, and it may happen in the future.
  • Georgia-Estonia swap places?: I have already made canon that Estonia will move more and more away from the USSR, and growing to almost a stalker on Finland, but what about Georgia? I have read before that despite their efforts to be independent, they would remain in a Soviet sphere of influence. So maybe with Abkhazia and South Ossetia out of Georgia's control early on, and a continued Soviet presence, Georgia would become the "reluctant" ally of the USSR. The USSR and Georgia would cooperate together, but in comparison to neighboring, pro-Soviet Armenia; Georgia would more or less be a dog on a chain. They would keep their "canton" flag, rather than adopting a variant of St. George's Cross; and would not move towards the nationalist state that it is in OTL.
  • Spationautes: Again, something I mentioned months ago, but never came to a conclusion. I have decided that with the USSR continuing, the ESA (led by France) would continue their Hermes program. By 1997, Europe will have their own human spaceflight program. If Mir-2 and Freedom aren't going to become an ISS, than why would France expect any special treatment from the Soviets. Plus I love the idea of there being more spacefaring nations.
File:Axis Hetalia New Union.png
  • Hetalia and SATW FTW!: I am a huge fan of Hetalia and Scandinavia and the World. After seeing someone make a page about an alternate Hetalia, I am more interested in doing something similar. Not just for New Union, but for all my timelines. I have some ideas, but nothing I can write in just one bullet list. Here is a quicky image I made for fun. Its from the first episode of Hetalia. Instead of Russia and Belarus pestering Latvia, its Russia (USSR) and Armenia pestering Georgia. Though I can see Russia (USSR) looking as OTL Russia does, I am pretty sure Armenia and Georgia would look different. So again, this was just for fun.

КОНЕЦ!!! --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:16, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

So long as the A-K dispute is settled at least somewhat in its favor - like you've done here - Armenia would easily be a friend. I just can't see the Georgians going along with anything like that at all. Especially with regards to their flag - Georgians hate, and always have, that "canton" flag. Cooperating to a degree, sure, but any sort of ally is likely out of the question. Think like Armenia with regards to Russia otl. All the rest sounds good. Lordganon 13:28, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
Hm... okay. I guess Georgia could adopt its new flag, but I am still keen on the idea that Georgia will remain in a "sphere of influence." I still don't think they would have adopted a nationalist government (or Saakashvili won't come into power). But if that's the case, than wouldn't Georgia keep their canton flag? Shevardnadze didn't support changing the flag, with it only being adopted during Saakashvili's term. Not too sure, getting confused. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:22, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

An update: Here is what I am thinking about now:

  • Armenia would be pro-Soviet, but also pro-Independent. The Armenian economy is dependent heavily on the USSR, and stuff. Russia and Armenia are members of the CSTO, and Russia has even agreed to go to war for Armenia if Turkey were to attack. Artsakh is its own republic of the USSR, but also has a close tie with Armenia. As part of the agreement to bring peace, Armenians gain easy access through Azerbaijan to help in the Artsakh economy, and Azeri gain easy access though Armenia to Nakhchivan. Artsakh and Armenia still show interest in uniting one day, but Artaskians tend to favor a unification within the Soviet Union, or a continued Soviet friendship.
  • Georgia: Though more resistant of the USSR, Georgia would find itself more and more tied to the USSR. Though gaining good relations with Europe and the USA, Georgia would also depend heavily on Soviet trade to survive. Despite the fact that Georgia lost Abkhazia and South Ossetia, The Georgian-Soviet relations are though to be better than they have been in decades. Georgia would also be a member of the CSTO, and would also work on trade agreements between the USSR and Armenia. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:04, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

That's more or less the Armenian situation otl, for Georgia atl.

No, Georgia really wouldn't keep it. The vast majority of Georgians wanted the flag change - which is essentially the flag of the old Georgian Kingdom, not anything remotely new - and Shevardnadze was pretty much the only reason it didn't happen before 2003. Here, he would not be able to establish his dictatorship, and whoever came to power after him would do the change. As a matter of fact, the Georgian Parliament passed a bill for the flag change otl in 1999, even with his opposition, and that was the only reason it took as long as it did to get it put in afterwards, as well as the time it took for the bill in the first place. And, the otl flag after independence being adopted was as much a fluke as anything, too.

Lordganon 19:59, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Hetalia (New Union)

I, too am a huge fan of Hetalia. I was the one to write the page on the alternate Hetalia. I'd be willing to write a page for New Union's Hetalia.

Yank 01:36, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Really? That was you? You did a really interesting job. I would be honored if you want to make a page for the New Union timeline. Feel free to do so. But if you don't mind, I may want to design the characters for Armenia and Georiga... or at least begin them. Otherwise, thank you again. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:37, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

I have created the Hetalia (New Union) page for you. I just want you to supply the name of the USSR's faction, as well as the nations in each faction.

Yank 15:14, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:42, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
Not saying the premise is bad or anything, but should it really be called "Hetalia" (incompetent Italia) when the web comic/anime is about the USSR? ChrisL123 15:47, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
You got a point. But (as I hope it is true), Cold War Hetalia is a spin-off of the original Axis Powers Hetalia. So if that is true, we are just seeing a new timeperiod of Hetalia. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:09, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
The POD is in the 80's. That means World War II is unchanged, and so are Japanese sterotypes created by said war. The Italians would still be viewed as spineless cowards. It should be written that Hetalia: Axis Powers came first and ran its course, and Hetalia: Cold War was born afterwards. In this respect it's more of an equivilent to the Hetalia: World Series that I've been hearing about, but unable to get due to near-constant red tape.
Yank 11:21, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Vote for the Cosmonaut!!

Here are some more ideas that I have thought about lately.

  • President Tereshkova: Currently, I am locked in my Venusian Haven timeline. After reading more about my protagonist (Valentina Tereshkova), I found out that she was more than just a cosmonaut. After her time in space, she became a member of the Supreme Soviet, a member of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, and was in the Central Committee of the Communist Party. After the collapse of the USSR, she lost her political prestige. But with the USSR continuing, maybe she would continue to climb up the political ladder, and making her a very interesting candidate for President. She would probably have the full support of the female voters, the working class, and her public knowledge as the first woman in space would probably help her out even further. As for her political background, I believe she would (more or less) follow Gorbachev's model. Plus the fact that a former actor (Ronald Regan) was able to become President and help bring an end to the Cold War, or having Schwarzenegger being the "Governator," why not finally have a cosmonaut President of the USSR. Probably better than having a KGB agent or a Puppet (at least for this timeline). So the presidential lineup (as I support) would be:
  1. Gorbachev (1990-1995)
  2. Ryzhkov (1995-2005)
  3. Tereshkova (2005-Present)
  • Belarus or Belorussia?: Here is a question I have had for a while now. It's pretty much fact, Belarus is a very, very, very, very weird nation. They supported remaining in the USSR to the very end, supported the August Coup, yet they declared independence within days of the coup, changed their name a flag, only to change their flag back and want to be reunited with Russia. Again, very confusing and very weird. But with the August coup never happening, I am semi-confident that the Belorussian SSR would support the continuation of the name "Belorussia" (not the pro-independent "Belarus"). My only question would really be on their flag. With them remaining in a USSR, they would probably feel safer to express themselves as an individual republic. So wouldn't they want to adopt their white-red-white flag? It just seems very backwards in comparison with OTL. So you can see why it sounds very hard for me to get a strait answer. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 19:13, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

1)You talk as if CPSU is only political power in USSR. But in TTL to 2005 USSR is the multiparty state, so why not somebody from other parties win presidental election?

2)Official name wil be Белорусская ССР. Белоруссия and Беларусь will use with same frecuency, I think


I like the thought if her becoming president. Sounds very atl.

Probably they would stick with Belorussia. As for their flag, I agree that them using the the white-red-white flag is very likely.

Lordganon 09:03, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Sorry about that. I know the USSR is a multi-party state, but I am getting quite confused as well. After removing Putin from the Presidency, I can't really think of any other parties. I still believe that in a world where the CPSU has been reformed and no longer holds full control of the nation would probably remain in good favor for the higher authorities (i.e., President). I know it sounds weird, but nothing is really canon yet. Maybe Tereshkova would be an Independent, or something, not really too sure. I still need to work out the political parties of the USSR, and which ones hold higher authority in the Supreme Soviet and political offices. But I will figure something out before making anything canon. As for Lordganon (lolz, just realized your name XP), President Tereshkova does sound pretty ATL, now I like her even more. As for the name of Belorussia, I believe they may rename themselves the "Republic of Belorussia" or the "Belorussian Republic," since all the republics seem to be dropping the "Soviet Socialist" from there names. IMHO, it also seems very redundant to refer to all the republics officially as SSRs (especially in TTL). That would be like calling Florida the "American Democratic State of Florida," no need to go into too much detail. Personally, I like Belorussia's white-red-white flag more than their SSR and variant flag. Can't really say why. Makes no sense, I like Belarus's white-red-white flag, but I hate Russia's white-blue-red flag. That is why I am very insistent that Russia keep its old SSR flag in TTL. But that story is for another day. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:22, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

Here is another idea I though of a while ago, and I wanted to get some feedback on it. This idea would probably be complete bull, and would probably not work out. But still, can't hurt to throw it around the table. Okay, this idea comes from the Sino-Soviet split, and the fact that most of the communist states supported the USSR. Only Albania and Somalia (and I think Cambodia?) supported the PRC, while North Korea and Yugoslavia remained neutral from both. With the collapse of communism, all the remaining states (excluding Cuba) now support the PRC. But with a continuing USSR, could this be different? I know the relations with these former allies were rocky around the POD, but maybe we could see a greater loosening of total communist control in these nations. Maybe Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (I dough NK and PRC would do so) would move with the USSR towards a less-hardline government. But again, this is just an idea, and I am not too sure it would work out. If anything, the former Soviet allies would remain allies of the USSR, not moving towards China. Any thoughts? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:22, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, many of them would likely remain allied to some degree. Off-hand, I'd say the more hard-line the regime, the less likely they'd be to remain that here, and vice-versa. Another good idea overall. Lordganon 18:29, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Why can't China be influenced by Russia and become allies with them. It might simplyfy somethings (or maybe complicate them :/ ). I hope u consider my ideas. 21:04, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Political parties

My vision of the political parties in the USSR

1) CPSU - I think, this party will die in TTL too. OTL it was murder, TTL it will be slow natural death to middle 1990-s. This party can split into 3 main parts

a) Democratic Communist Party - party of Rutskoy, social-democratic party

b) some Stalinist, Soviet Nationalist party (such as OTL CPRF)

c) Trotskyist and anarchist movements

2) Democratic Union - Union of Liberal movements and parties of different republics. IMHO, DU will have a strong position in RSFSR - since the Yeltsin times, as opposing the Union center.

3) Socialist Union

4)Congress of Russian Communities - Russian Nationalist party. Particularly strong in republics with great Russian minority - Crimea, Pridnestrovie, Kazakhstan

5) Different national parties

6)Russian National Unity - fascist party. Banned as well as OTL, but actively involved in the illegal position

Sounds pretty good. I was also thinking that the CPSU would be divided between several factions, but I was (more or less) thinking:
  1. "Perestroikists" (Gorbachev/Ryzhkov)
  2. Communists for Democracy (Rutskoy)
  3. Hardliners
But in the end, the CPSU would remain in tact. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 20:44, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

North Korea: A friend of America?

After getting a positive response to my thoughts about the remaining communist nations, I wanted to detail what I have been thinking. I say again, I am not suggesting canonization right off the back, this is more of a cross talk I am looking for (throwing ideas around and stuff). Anyway, here are my ideas:

Vietnam and Laos

I consider Vietnam and Laos to move in a (more or less) similar direction in comparison with each other. The only real difference I see would be that the two continue to request Soviet assistance, not Chinese. With a looser communist system in the USSR, Laos and Vietnam may move in a similar direction. Both would drop the single-party system, but the communist parties would remain in significant power. Both would move towards a Soviet-styled economy, and (just as in OTL) both nations would establish better relations with its neighbors (becoming part of ASEAN). I know very little about the two, so I can't go too much into detail.


Unlike OTL, Cuba would virtually have no choice but to continue relations with the USSR (in order to survive). Much like in the case of Eastern Europe and Africa, the reforms of the USSR would begin to take effect in Cuba. I can't think how far it would go, but maybe we could see the CPC loosen like the CPSU, moving away from hardline communism. Multiple parties would form. Elections would take place, and relations with the US may grow friendlier.

North Korea

Here is the million dollar question, can NK be any different in TTL? After thinking about it, here is my idea on what could be the most positive and likely outcome. Feel free to laugh your asses off.

In combinations of the political and economic reforms in both the USSR and the PRC, famine, pressure from the US and South Korea (and maybe from Gorbachev too), SK accusations that the North are responsible for recent devastation in the South (Korean Air Flight 858), and the eventual death of Kim Il-sung; the North could move in a different direction than OTL. What I can see as a possibility, Kim Jong-il may be pressured to loosen communist grip in NK. Kim could move NK towards a Chinese-styled economy, and open itself up to the world. As with the cooperation between North and South in OTL, maybe it could go further with the North and South actually signing a treaty that ends the Korean War. Though the DMZ would not become a public symbol as with the Berlin Wall, its usage to both sides would become less needed, allowing for the gradual removal of the DMZ. With the DMZ and war over, the US may begin to withdrawal its troops from the peninsula. As similar to the Two Chinas, both Koreas would probably continue to believe that the other is a rouge state controlling parts of their territory, but with more cooperation between both governments. Though NK would not completely open itself up, it would begin to loose its "hermit" ideals of isolationism. As with Gorbachev recognizing and forming relations with South Korea, maybe the Americans would do a similar gesture to the North. I don't think this would completely change the North's feel for the US, but maybe it could get warmer (as was the case of post-WWII feeling of the Germans and Japanese).

As I said before, this is just an idea, sorry if it sounds too optimistic. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:45, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds about right for Vietnam, Laos and Cuba, but that does sound too optimistic for North Korea. The Kims are all just a touch too crazy to go along with any of that - otl, with similar pressures, they are still this way, so it's unlikely that they would do it atl. The USSR re-organizing, etc. like is the case here would more likely have the opposite effect then in Germany and China, kinda worse than otl. I could see Gorby warming to the south, and the US doing so a touch to the north, but going much further is probably a touch out there. The Kims, after all, with how they run that place, wouldn't even have popular pressure, so to speak, to make them go along with anything. Lordganon 09:38, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

I liked the idea and would have gone a bit furthur with suggesting assination of Kim by a Soviet or American agent and then the situation changing so much that talks of unification would be on the cards. A little ambitious and optimistic but just seems nice. 21:17, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Kim Jong-Il is too much of a dangerous loose cannon to keep alive. Given his unpredictable personality it would make strategic sense to take him out and to restructure the North Korean government. All things considered the assassination would likely be one of the few things the Americans and Soviets could agree on. I could almost see a joint CIA-KGB op to either terminate or overthow him. Likewise, I could see Soviet-American cooperation in the fight against terrorism.

Yank 11:35, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Taking him out of the equation would leave North Korea open for democracy and even unification with South Korea. I would say this as North Korea is ruled with an iron fist, so Kim Jong-II dead would leave communism pretty weak in North Korea. 10:39, July 13, 2011 (UTC)


I think, that TTL capital of Kazakhstan would be in Alma-Ata (or Almaty). Relocation of the capital to Tselinograd (Astana) was caused by the presence of a large Russian minority in the Northern Kazakhstan and threat of separatism in this region.


Thank you for the heads up. I was aware of this for a while now. I just have been busy to go around and change the information. All of the new works have the Kazakh capital at Almaty. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:16, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

Vladikavkaz or Dzaudzhikau?
OTL since 1990 Vladikavkaz is the official name of former Ordzhonikidze, and Dzaudzhikau - unofficial Ossetian name. But in NU TL, where Ossetia is the Union republic, may well be a reverse situation...

Reserve dictators?

OTL in many postsoviet republics in power are, in fact, dictators, such as Nursultan Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan, Alexander Lukashenko in Belorussia, Saparmurat Niyazov in Turkmenia, Heydar Aliyev in Azerbaidzhan, Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan, Emomali Rahmonov in Tadzhikistan . And what will be with tham in NU, where 2 5-years term - constitutionally set limit? My ideas about this:

1) Lukashenko - he comes to power in 1995, when сountry going through economic crisis, and were large protests in society. So, TTL his chanses for presidency are not so great... I think he can be leader of the Hardlain Communists, more popular than the corruption scandals tarnished Zyuganov. He also can be HC cadidat for Union President elections

2) Nazarbayev - he is from Party bosses of CPSU. So, he can be Kazakh president in 1991-2001. Also he can be one of the biggest political figures in USSR - OTL he was leader of Eurasian Mowement - Social-Democratic and semi-nationalistic (Eurasian Nationalistic) mowement for reconstruction oF the Union. He also can do this thing in TTL

Soviet ruble

OTL proporsals of 1996

Where did you find these? I had no idea Russia proposed to change their currency design. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:29, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

My ideas:

  • Lomonosov/Pushkin (literature/philosophy/poetry?) - simple 2 greatest figures of Russian culture - Founding Fathers of Russian science (Lomonosov) and poetry (Pushkin)


Hope you don't mind, but I cleaned up your list. I also just realized the pattern in the currency design, so hope you also don't mind me putting the category next to the list. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 21:50, July 10, 2011 (UTC)
Update: Found the Р100! I believe it is Pushkin, but I can't be sure. [3][4]
We forgot, that it will be Soviet, not only Russian rouble
So, proporsals with persons from another republics:
Pushkin/Omar Khayyam
Avicenna ( /Pirogov (,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 )

No North Korea?

Months ago, I proposed a possibility that North Korea could potentially move towards a less-hardliner ideology (more or less like OTL China). But recently, I got suggestions from an IP user and Yankovic suggesting a new scenario. Both the USA and USSR realize that the Kims are too "out of sync" to remain in power, that it is agreed to unite to remove him.

I am coming out to state that... I LOVE THIS IDEA!! Not just for a more peaceful Korea, but for the fact that this is a good example for what I wanted this timeline to be... American-Soviet friendship. It's not like both countries have every done this before, but the fact that both work together seems too good for me to pass up. But my only question would be how would this work out. When would the US-SU agree to do this, how would it be executed, and what would be the overall outcome of the peninsula. Would it only lead to the North adopting a more-democratic government and remain separate, or would we see the Korean Reunification happen? And if the reunification were to happen, would it mimic Germany (meaning it would be the South that simply annexes the North), or something different. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:52, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

One problem: China. They wouldn't allow them to do it. Lordganon 18:54, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

The North Koreans are too unpredictable. The Chinese must have more reliable allies than them. And they are not true Marxists. Their government, especially the hereditary sucession of power, makes them effectively a neo-feudal government with communist pretentions. And for all we know we could write about a diplomatic incident that cools relations between the two countries. That would give the Soviet-American coalition the perfect moment to strike.

Yank 23:12, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

More or less... I was going to mention that if this were a joint CIA-KGB ploy, than China would most likely not know about it until after the fact. The only think I would see China in is helping to determine the future of North Korea. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:46, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

I rather doubt that they would have a more reliable ally, but that's not even the issue in that regard. Simply put, the Chinese wouldn't accept a state without their interests on that border, especially with the "New Union" going on. Even if they have a cooling with NK that would be the case.

They may not know about it in advance - though I doubt that, things like a Coup are pretty hard to hide unless the people in charge are fools, which while in many regards the Kims are/were, in this case they wouldn't be - but anything of that sort, and China would be over the border, probably within hours. Simply put, if it's not on terms that China agrees with - which is obviously not the case - it wouldn't fly.

Lordganon 13:00, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

What if Kim Jong-Il was killed before the coup starts? Regardless on whatever the Chinese want, no one can reinstall a dead man.

Yank 17:29, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for continuing to endorse this idea, but I will continue to look into this idea until I feel it is impossible. Anyway, I came across an article which tells of a failed coup. From what I can make of it, there was a coup around 1993, which came from the turmoil that North Korea was at the time, plus out of fear that the government was launching missiles and forming a nuclear program (which we now know is true). The coup was done by several military officials, but the failure caused several to flee the nation, where this story came out. I can see that if any spies of Russia knew about this, or even revealed any plot to the highest authorities (such as Yeltsin), it probably would have been ignored due to the turmoil that Russia was going threw. But with the USSR still existing, the KGB still operating, and Gorbachev's views in Korea (forming relations with the South just years prior), maybe the USSR, or more likely the official of the KGB, would hear about the plot prior to its taking (I'm sure KGB would have worked in NK), and maybe even offers to assist the conspirators (seeing the benefits that would come from the end of Kim Il-Sung. If it looks like the North Koreans did the coup, than neighboring China would have very little to do, excluding assisting government officials flee the country or retake the country. Any thoughts? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:23, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

One problem there, Nuke - nothing in that article has ever really been confirmed to have happened. Given that there has been defectors, and spies in NK, since and nothing else, I'm inclined to think that the person was exaggerating or something of the like. Someone likely just thought about it, and bit the bullet as a result.

The KGB couldn't do something like that without approval from Gorby. Besides that, NK is so secretive that I have to doubt that anyone has good intel, even the KGB.

China would likely have, at the time and given the changes in the USSR, invaded in such an event. The army would likely have supported it in NK.

As for Jong's death somehow making a difference, he had brothers, simply put.

Lordganon 00:32, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

What if North Korea still exists, but under someone else's control? And what if the new regime continue the relationship with China? It's the best solution, as everyone profits from it (especially the North Korean citizens). After all, does North Korea really need Kim Jong-Il and his family to be close allies with China?

Yank 22:30, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't, but any scenario that has them going away isn't plausible. If it helps any, his family is apparently more sane than he is, so there would be positive effects overall. Lordganon 02:57, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Then what if the coup ousts Kim Jong-Il and installs one of his saner relatives? I don't think China would have an issue with that.

Yank 15:58, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, outside of a few sentences from that one pilot, there is no evidence that anything like that happened at all. There's been other defectors, and the like, and no media reports out of NK either - and that would not have happened had it been true.

Going from that, it's obvious that he is either lying, or vastly overstating something he heard to gain favor. Probably the latter.

A coup just isn't plausible.

Lordganon 02:59, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

China can stand up to one country, not an alliance. They stood up to the US in the Korean war but they had help from the Russians and the Koreans. In this senario, with the tables turned China would have no option but to keep silent. 10:45, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

One thing, u don't need a coup for a government change, lets say Kim and a few of his family gets assassinated, then South Korea moves up and takes control of most of North Korea. As soon as China finds out, diplomats could be sent for a negotiation, where u could have them giving away land concession from former North Korea or having a neutral zone of dimilliterization. In the early 80s China and Russia had disputes over land control on their border, but they managed to sort it out. The Chinese might be communist, but u CAN negotiate treaties with them. 11:01, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

How about this: a huge famine strikes NK, the worst ever. The people are running out of food, there is no more Kimchi (oh no! L), and the Kims are living in luxury in their palace. The people begin to realize: their leaders had lied to them. Also mixed in with that is news that South Korea and the UN had offered aid to NK . . . only to have it rejected by Kim Il-Sung. The army isn’t being paid. Nobody is being paid. Beggers fill the streets . . . only to be beat up by the police. The people are restless, the army is restless, the government is restless. The perfect setup for a resistance, coup, assassination, or conctact to US/SU for help. It could be implausible, but I’m just giving my opinion. Flag of South KoreaPitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 11:04, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

That would involve a change in weather, which obviously does not happen. And that situation, food-wise, has already happened a few times - and you don't see any change, do you? Feed the army and their families, and the government workers themselves, screwing the people, and see how well things like that work out. Easy solution, and it's what they've done before, and will do again.

China is very capable of standing up to them. Nor would either be dumb enough to try something like this in the first place, knowing what the Chinese reaction would be. The Chinese have gone on record as saying they won't tolerate anything like that. For a long time.

South Korea is not capable of doing anything like that to the North.

Assassination = coup.

China only talked to the Russians to stop the fighting. They actually fought an undeclared war in 1969 over the matter, and even then took thirty years to fix the matter and "talk." So no, treaties don't work like you think they do. And their border with NK is a river, so why on earth would they want territory?

Lordganon 11:52, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

This is the most insane proposal I have ever proposed. North Korea attempts to re-unite the South by Kim Il Sung in 1994. The rest of the world reacted, and then the Soviets have made a shocker that they would allow a reunited Korea by the South as long as the united Korean nation have become neutral so it cannot offend the Chinese.

Or, Kim Il Sung finally lashes out not just at South Korea, but even Japan, China, and the Soviet Union. The result is predictable: the North Koreans are defeated by their own former friends thanks to their betrayal. The Chinese and the Soviets thought for a while that a North Korean provisional government would do, but then, the South Koreans found out and said that the former North Korea belongs to the Korean people though they allowed the Soviets and Chinese to rebuild the war-torn peninsula.

I think only by restarting the Korean War before even the North Koreans make a nuclear weapon could make the peninsula any better.

General tiu 15:23, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I would remove Japan and the Soviet Union because to get to Russia you have to cross China and you have to sail across to attack Japan.. You could say that they start a war with South Korea. Then China tells them to stop the war when the North Koreans come knocking on their doorstep as they don't want to be in the middle of the war. The North Koreans, thinking this is a betreyal by China, lash out at them aswell. The war against South Korea is going well. The North Koreans have occupied almost half of South Korea, encircled Seoul and they have captured major strongholds on the Chinese mainland. Thinking that the war against the South has almost won, the North Koreans divert most of their troops against the fight against China. Chinese troops finally managed to reach the front lines in force and managed to conter-attack. The South Koreans, with most of their army still intact, start another counter attack. They managed to break through the North's defences and drive toward Seoul, where they join up with troops and break into North Korean territories and are nearing Pyongyang. The north has to divert troops and this inturn leads into the Chinese counter attack being successful. Within days, China has broken into Korea and the South has entered Pyongyang. A misfired shell lands onto the building Kim was holding an emergency meeting in and kills everybody, including Kim. With the North Koreans leaderless, the government breaks down and NK surrenders. Them the senario after the war has been won, given by General Tiu, plays out.

A contradiction to what you say LG, there is an article which blames Japan and the US for this divide, surprisingly. 16:41, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

None of that makes sense, nor is plausible. And, for the record, NK and Russia do have a border.

Almost that entire article is someone's opinion, and judging by it, it's one of the people that thinks the North Koreans are reasonable people, despite all evidence to the opposite being the case. It's also obviously someone with a bias against both Japan and the USA too. I've seen the type before - so blinded by an opinion that they miss the entire picture. Not a contradiction, just another self-entitled "diplomatic expert" without any real knowledge other than a couple of papers.

The fault lies with the Soviets, and then with the north. Not anyone else.

I point out that even that biased trash states that China keeps them on a short leash. Simple enough, really. And with even the most biased admitting such, China's response to any coup is obvious.

So no, no coup. About the best that could be hoped for here is NK being slightly more sane with regards to the nuclear negotiations, given likely Soviet pressure instead of Russian apathy. And, note that that would have little influence, given that the USSR here is much like Russia otl in that it is democratic, which the Kim's wouldn;t like here either.

Lordganon 18:08, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the article, but I liked the picture. What about another option, how about China adopt some same policies as Russia, under Russian pressure. Wouldn't China be different in this TL as Russia is still a Superpower and it has undergone changes?? 19:59, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but to the best of my knowledge, they stay more or less like otl. Russia pressure China? You realize how silly that is, right? That'd be like a horse trying to pressure an elephant - just don't happen. Lordganon 00:19, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but I have had a lot on my plate lately. As for this whole involvement for North Korea, I have to agree with Lordganon on this one. The idea of a reunification in TTL is probably just as unlikely as OTL, and the idea of North Korea moving away from the Kims is probably more unlikely. But after doing some thinking about it, I think I may have an interesting change of events that might be good for the entire peninsula. My idea is that with the Soviet Union showing great support and cooperation with the South, the US would look at bettering their relations with North Korea. Obviously North Korea wouldn't go for this, so I am referring to indirect relations. Maybe the US would adopt something much like the Sunshine Policy to loosen tensions in the North. One of these would be to limit or completely recall all American troops from South Korea, and doing what has already been done in Germany. TTL would probably see the likelihood of the US leaving the peninsula, especially if the USSR is taking a more active approach at North Korea's actions towards the South. This action by the US may lead the North Koreans to believe that the US IS attempting to warm relations. I dough this would go as far as the US opening an embassy in Pyongyang, but maybe a more peaceful look at the region. Along with South Korea's Sunshine Policy, we could see tensions in the peninsula go from tensions to calm-ish. As to how far this would go, I can see it only going as far as the two maybe doing minor trading with each other, but that would pretty much be it. But in the long run, this would probably be better for both sides (if not the world as a whole). As for the North gaining Nukes, I can see the USSR preventing this. From what I have watched, it was a Pakistani who sold nuclear secrets to North Korea. The fact that the USSR would pressure the North not to develop WMDs, and the fact that the Soviets would despise Pakistan (who support the separatists in southern Afghanistan), North Korea could remain Nuclear-less. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:26, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

The idea of the Sunshine Policy in a slighter further along form works, though any sort of withdrawal of American forces, past a certain point, is not really realistic. I fully realize that NK here would not be so aggressive, but otl, about the only thing keeping them from invading the South is - despite all you may hear amount the minefields - the American garrison. That sums up why they remain there, no matter who is in charge there, despite the SK people wanting them gone.

Thus, even with it more peaceful, I can't see them leaving. Maybe pulling back from the border, but that'd be about it. With the Kims - crazy as they are - in charge, more than that can't be risked.

As for the nukes, maybe. They could very well get it another way, but given the secrecy of otl with regards to the nukes, it's very possible that the Soviets wouldn't know about it until it was too late.

Though, maybe not. All I can say is that NK would have done something else loony, given its leadership.

Lordganon 02:32, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

There is another somewhat plausible way to remove Kim Jong-Il from power. I recently read an article stating that Kim Jong-Il is suffering from "advanced diabetes and heart disease as well as high blood pressure" and that in 2007 these problems were getting worse. One of the many butterfies created by the POD could be that increased stress created by the increasing Soviet-American cooperation could cause his health problems to worsen, and possibly kill him. Given that Kim is over sixty years old this idea is very plausible. China wouldn't be a issue if Kim Jong-Il would die from natural causes.

Yank 03:24, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

You're failing to get the point. Doesn't really matter who is in power, they would still do it. And, there has never been any real proof that he was actually ill - only claims by people. Lordganon 04:21, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? There would be no coup or reunification. There would be no cause for China to get involved in North Korea. And why is it that nothing you say is ever positive? I swear your only reason to use to wiki is to rain on everyone's parade. The glass is totally empty as far as you're concerned. You are seriously pissing me off right now. This is NuclearVacuum's timeline and you just had to butt in.

Yank 04:43, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

The first scenario, no matter who is in charge, is not plausible because of China. That is the point you are not grasping.

I am being positive. I give advice, and advise on how plausible things are. I am sorry that you interpret things that way, and power to you. But that's not my problem.

I'm not butting in at all - I pointed out an extremely valid reason - several, in fact - as to why it wasn't possible. You are the one that butted in. Now, drop it.

Lordganon 04:49, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Yank, I guess, you make a standalone timeline about the North Korean fall. That's pretty the best solution.

General tiu 05:15, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this can happen: It’s 200X, and Kim is dying due to stress caused by what Yank said. He knows he will die within 2 years, and is feeling what most communists/atheists feel before they die. What happens when I’m dead? Kim feels he has little time, so he orders an attack upon South Korea so he can see the united Korean people before he dies. This starts the Second Korean War, with a surprise attack by the North Koreans. And, as before, the North Koreans are winning, surrounding Pusan, the last US stronghold. The US and the UN initiate OPLAN 5027. Many nations send support. And unlike in OTL, China does not interfere. In the end, North Korea is defeated, the peninsula is a waste, but Korea is united. 12:13, July 14, 2011 (UTC) (PitaKang)

OMG! We made Lordganon angry:? Wow... never seen it go that far. But he is right, and I have to take his word for this (he has never done me wrong on these issues). Forget I ever brought the reunification up. Like mentioned before, all we may be able to see is a more active Sunshine Policy and some sort of American "cooperation" (in the loosest sense of the world) with the North. All we can do is wait, and hope that Kim Jong-un doesn't follow the sins of his father or grandfather. Afterall, the reason he was apparently chosen to be Jong-Il's successor was because his oldest son was caught going to Disneyland. Some father, right? In the end, I am officially closing this discussion, there is to be no more talk about reunification, coups, or anything of that nature against the Kims. So lets all take a step back and relax a while. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:21, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
I think after so much evidence from both sides, lets wait until the man called Kim dies, of natural reasons or otherwise. Then maybe the discussion could be ignited again. Unless Kim is more sane than anybody thinks he is and he negotiates a peace treaty with S. Korea or takes it a step further, who knows?? Only time will tell. ;) 21:45, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
Trust me when I say that that wasn't anger at all, lol. Lordganon 21:07, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

South Korea

Made a page of ROK. Suggestions appreciated. Thanks. Flag of South KoreaPitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 12:40, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Could have created a link to the page you have created. It would be appreciated. Thanks. 21:39, July 14, 2011 (UTC)


Greetings. May I start off by saying, Bravo. I have no particular interest in the USSR, but your alternate history kept me glued to my screen. My eyes hurt. It was truly fascinating, almost Turtldovian (if Kubrick can get an adjective, so can he).

But I also wanted to ask what you think made this alternate history so great, and how it came to be featured. What work was done, what collaborations were had. I myself am embarking on a rather ambitious alternate history myself, one of the Trojan war, called Eternal Troy. I wanted to ask for advice on how to make it as truly superb and well-done as this one. Thank you for your time. Kurt Qel-Droma 01:39, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

American Elections

I made a page for the 1992 Election.

Despite a souring economy Bush wins a narrow victory because of the enduring Red Scare, later in 2006 however it is found that the Republicans raided the voting booths in Illanois.

1996 will be a devastating land slide for Bill Clinton. I don't know whether the Republicans would nominate Qualye or not.

Second round of leaders

2303 has reignited the leaders question. So, I would love to bring it back on the table. First off, let me update on what I have thought of lately.

Soviet of Republics seating chart

Seating chart of the Soviet of Republics

  Social Democratic Party (365)
  Unity (217)
  CPSU-Communists for Democracy (157)
  Party of Regions (71)
  Yabloko (50)
  CPSU-Hardliner (36)
  Independent (25)
  Green Union (4)

  • Political parties: I have come up with an interesting lineup for the political parties of the USSR. Which are:
    • Social Democratic Party (SDP) – Gorbachev would form around 2001 or so, and would be the largest party in the Supreme Soviet.
    • Communist Party (CPSU) – I am still debating on whether it would be the same party as before, or a reformed version (much like OTL Union of Communist Parties — Communist Party of the Soviet Union or Communist Party of the Soviet Union [1992]). But it would be divided into two factions.
      • Communists for Democracy – Who now make up the majority in the party.
      • Traditionalists – Enough said.
    • Unity – A political union of democratic parties across the USSR. Supported by Yeltsin, and has large say in many republics, as well as Moscow and Leningrad.
    • Party of Regions – More or less similar to OTL United Russia. Originally formed as a party which supports regionalism (as its name suggests), it has currently evolved into a pro-Russian political party. The party has more say in northern Kazakhstan and eastern Ukraine (where the Russian populations are large).
    • Yabloko – (Я люблю яблок ^_^) a liberal socialist party, and I think would be the largest liberal party of the USSR.
    • Green Union (Зелёный Союз) – A Green political party (environmentalism). A newly formed party, only has a few seats in the Supreme Soviet.

Here is a WIP seating chart for the Soviet of Republics (one of the two houses of the Supreme Soviet). I still need to finalize the image, but you can all get an idea as to what I have in mind. I am open to new ideas.

  • Ryzhkov: I think we are all in line that Ryzhkov will be the successor to Gorbachev. However, two questions need to be finalized.
    • Communist or Independent? – I have been thinking that Ryzhkov would run as an Independent candidate, but would gain support from the CPSU and the SDP. It wouldn't be until his successor that a party-backed candidate would run. Do you think he should remain in a party?
    • Gorby leaves early – I can't find too much about Gorbachev (especially involving the NUT). However, 2303 has brought to my attention that in a recent interview (to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the failed coup), Gorbachev made mention that he intended to resign as President shortly after the signing. I see nothing wrong with this, but how would this turn out? I believe he should remain President for a little while after the signing, at least until after the adoption of a new constitution. Maybe the new constitution would push for an early election (rather than my original idea of Gorbachev agreeing not to seek a second term if he would be allowed to complete his term), maybe in early 1993 or so. This would be when Ryzhkov takes office (from 1993 until 2003). I am insistent that Tereshkova remain a President, and remain the incumbent President of the USSR. Maybe someone would be elected in between Ryzhkov and Tereshkova, someone would only serve one term, or Tereshkova would be elected in 2003, and will leave office in 2013 (so a new president would need to be considered).

--NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:55, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Update: I just came across an article about the August 2011 interview (or an interview around the time). Here it is. I have always admired Gorbachev, and I felt like crying a laughing from reading this. Read the very end, and you will see why. Я ЛЮБЛЮ ГОРБАЧЁВ!!!!!! But down to business... I came across an interesting quote:

The 12 Soviet republics that remained after the Baltics left had accepted the text of a new treaty that would give them more political and economic autonomy while leaving defence and foreign affairs to the Soviet government.

From what I make out, Armenia, Georgia, and Moldavia were looking to remain in the USSR?? I may be reading it wrong, but I always thought that these three would leave (especially Moldavia). I will have to go around and look for more articles to read, but it will have to wait until I get off of work. TTFN --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 19:25, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

As you've got it now, is very fine, for presidents, I figure. Gorby started as "President" in 1990, no harm in having him go until 1994/1995 like here. Given that they would have to iron out a constitution, do polls, censuses, etc, it taking a while makes sense.

Run Ryz~ as an independent.

Thing with that statement from Gorby, those three republics - outside of the Baltic ones - boycotted a referendum on that type of agreement otl. You're reading it right, but.... accepting is one heck of a lot different than actually agreeing to something. I fully realize that the referendum was a few months before the coup, but it makes complete sense that in the end they would not sign it.

Lordganon 05:35, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

I correct Vainakhia page, becaurse, I think, without ГКЧП Doku Zavgayev, no Dudayev will be the first president of this republik. 2303

South Korea

How's my article going? Any mistakes/errors? Something to make it better? Flag of South KoreaPitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 00:50, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Also, maybe we should archive the page? Flag of South KoreaPitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 00:51, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Dude, WHAT?!

I actually made edits on the United States, why are they deleted? You say we can add to this Althist! 23:57, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me. The reason I removed it is because it makes the page look "dirty" (if you know what I mean). I would prefer it be cleaned up (code correcting for this website and such). Does that make any sense? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:21, September 13, 2011 (UTC)


Thanks about it dude. I promise never to do that again.

P.S. I was the one who created the "Religion" article in the Soviet Union page, I'm glad you liked the idea! 23:01, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Some Suggestions

I do suggest some good ideas for the New Union althist to make it better, here's some!

  • 9/11 (2001, obviously!)1: Unlike OTL, both the OTL 9/11 attacks and the Moscow attacks (the 2003 Moscow Bombing from the timeline) happen at the same time. Osama bin Laden gives credit for both attacks. The casualties are the 9/11 OTL casualties and 2,803 for the Msocw Bombing.
  • War on Terror: A U.S.-Soviet joint invasion of Sudan (who houses Al Qaeda and its leadership especialliy bin Laden) with their CSTO and NATO allies. Later, after the 2003 Bombings in Ethiopia (the ones mentioned in the timeline), the Soviet UNion and CSTO is forced to drop out of the War in Sudan to join Ethiopia in the War in Somalia.
  • Gulf War: After the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, the U.S.-Soviet joint invasion of Kuwait with their NATO, CSTO, and Arab allies. In 1991, when plans and rumors of a coup in Iraq is revealed to U.S. and the Soviet Union, they are intrested in it to support it in order to end the war. With the coup successful and Saddam ousted, Kuwait is liberated and Iraq is split into Kurdistan, Basra (the Shia part of Iraq), and Iraq (the Sunni part of Iraq).
  • Kurdistan: With the formation of Kurdistan after the Gulf War, the new country urges Turkey, Iran, and Syria to give their Kurdish parts to the new country. At first, the countries were hesitant, but pressure from the international community forced the countries to do so.
  • Occupation in Iraq: In order to restore order to Basra and Iraq, both nations pledged to occupy certain sections of it. U.S. takes Iraq, while S.U. (short for the Soviet Union (haha it's like the initials U.S. in reverse)) occupies Basra. Despite the obstacles, including Hussein's loyalists, properly working governments were established in both countries.
  • Chinese Uprising: Despite the failure of the Tianeman protests, the survival of the S.U. (and being more democratic with more freedom (at par with the U.S.)) will cause more Chinese people to demand for demcracy and freedom. In 1993, the movement becomes so strong that during the spring months, protests were commonplace, but the government tried to crush the movement brutally. However, a combination of international pressure and growing protests caused the end of the Chinese government, causing a demcratic one to be set up, with Taiwan officially joining it. 23:24, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The "stuff" I put in the U.S. that were deleted came from Wikipedia.

Hello hello. Interesting ideas. However:
  • 9/11: I personally think Bin Ladan wouldn't have been crazy enough to attack both superpowers on the same day. Though he is crazy, he is a very smart man. That would be like the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor on the same day they launch an attack on the Soviet Union. Seems to farfetched to me, better to leave it one at a time. Same goes with the War on Terror suggestion. Granted, NATO and the CSTO are not mortal enemies, they are also not bosom buddies. I do believe that they would have some cooperation, but maybe not to this scale (as of yet).
  • Gulf War: Nice idea, but you are FAR TOO LATE XD. The POD of TTL is August 18, 1991. The Gulf War ended on February 28, 1991. Why would the USA and the USSR invade Kuwait?? As for the coup, I would rather it remain the way it is already. Even if the Soviets knew about it, I am not too sure they would be as enthusiastic about the idea as the US would have been. After all, Hussein was allied with the USSR. This is one of the reasons why the USSR stayed out of Iraq in the Gulf War. In fact, I found an interesting article a while back which stated that Gorbachev acted too "soft" towards Hussein in the Gulf War, and Hussein even attempted to gain Soviet assistance after the "US invasion." Again, nice idea, but I would rather leave it the way it is. Granted, more details should be added.
  • Kurdistan: A "Greater Kurdistan" you say *evil grin*. As much as I would love to see a completely united Kurdistan, I have to say no T_T. For two reasons.
  1. I have already brought up the possibility of an independent Kurdistan. However, I learned that Turkey would probably go out of its way to make sure this doesn't happen. The general consensus is that Kurdistan would most likely not survive as an independent state for long (at least by itself). Granted, I am sure the US and USSR would be eager to cooperate with an independent Kurdistan (one of the major parties is Socialist), it just seems too unlikely to happen at the present.
  2. Even if Kurdistan were to gain independence, expansion is a completely different question. Like I mentioned before, Turkey would defend its territorial right to the point of war, and I don't think Iran would be as eager to loose territory either. Again, good idea, but not good for this timeline.
  • Iraqi occupation: The whole point of a coup was to keep Iraq free of occupation (so this really defeats the purpose). Again, I'd prefer what is in place right now. I feel that for both Iraqis (Sunni and Shia) and Kurds; a dead Hussein, no Kurdish civil war, no occupation, and a federation is the best option that could come out of this timeline. It could have been much worse.
  • China: Very interesting idea. The idea for a Chinese reunification in TTL has been an interest for me for a long time. The idea seems sound, and this is the one I would love to back. Ironically, I have already chosen the exact scenario for Cuba (pretty much the exact same wording [irony]). However, it seems somewhat unlikely. Not as much as the others, but still. After all, Gorbachev himself stated that it is only a matter of time for China to suffer the same fate as the USSR (and this was recent). I would have to need more details on the matter, but it also sounds much like a proposal I just made for a united Korea (which pretty much exploded out of control). I guess in short, forget the other ideas and focus more on this idea. Give me more detail on the matter, and lets get a third opinion from Lordganon.
As for the additions to the US. I guessed they were from Wikipedia. The reason I removed them was because of that. I am not sure if this is for everybody's computers (but definitely for mine), Wikia has a smaller page width than Wikipedia (ever since the updates months ago). Like I said before, all it needs is a little bit of tweaking. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 02:19, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Far as I could figure, most of the US additions were copied off Wikipedia exactly.

Agreed with you on all those things, nuke.

Thing with China, is that the government controls the army, and it has been indoctrinated into doing so. Any sort of movement will lead to a big, nasty, civil war, at best. More likely, a very bloody crackdown would occur. China is also more than strong enough to laugh at international pressure, too.

Taiwan, actually, has been independent for so long now that they will likely declare independence in the near future, and their government is largely made of Taiwanese, not the descendants of Chinese refugees too. They may go along with something like that, decades down the road, but anytime soon is very unlikely.

Nor would I call it on par with the US, either. Somewhere between it and the old USSR, true, but not all the way to the US side of the board.

But, massive political change and reunification are nearly impossible. The USSR reforms will likely see some slight relaxations in China, but that would be about it.

Lordganon 06:02, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Arab and Asian Spring

Ever since the beginning of Arab Spring, I was wondering if we could put the events of the movement in the timeline. I also though of a movement called "Asian Spring", where after a Chinese man posted a video about the curelty of the Communist government and killed himself to "escape the dreaded country", it caused mass protests in China, which spread to many other countries during the spring months. North Korea, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Kampuchea, Iran, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Bhutan. Is that good? 14:45, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

We have been putting little by little of Arab Spring in the timeline. The problem is, I don't want to go overboard. I have already made canon the idea that with the USSR continuing to exist, and Gadaffi's Libya still a major ally to the USSR in the Middle East, NATO would not get involved in Libya. But again, it is hard to predict the future, and this timeline is not predicting the future, but altering the past.
As for an "Asian Spring," sounds a little bit funny. But, it would be the events of Eastern Europe that would lead to the early protests in China in 1989. Even if there were to be a new uprising in China, I dough it would spread as far as you stated. Cambodia is no longer communist, Iran is pretty much just as tricky as China, and I can't speak for the other nations. Plus the fact that China is an internet black hole, I dough that a video of that magnitude would cause uprisings in China. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:59, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea on how the Chinese communist government could fall. The spark of revolution could have been during the Soviet Union's New Union reforms. The direct cause of the revolution would be economic overextension due to a three-way Cold War. The Cold War was draining enough on the Soviet Union with only one enemy to fight, but the Chinese have two. In this timeline it's likely that they hate both the Capitalist Americans, and the "class traitors" in the Soviet Union. I'm only assuming, as their is literally nothing on China besides the infobox. The twenty years of economic rivalry with both the States and the Soviets could have enough effect on China to create either a revolution or civil war in recent years.

Yank 15:51, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Republic of China 1912-1928.svg
I hate to say it, but I really am very interesting in the idea for China. Civil War seems like an interesting idea, but I am not an expert on China. One thing that pops into my mind is an alternate timeline I was working on (and ironically just deleted a few days ago). More or less, it was based on the idea that the PRC would follow the same fate as the USSR, collapsing and being divided into three nations (Tibet, Uyghuristan, and the remainder of China uniting with Taiwan to form the Federal Republic of China). I was even keen on using the original flag of the Republic of China (prior to their adoption of the flag with the main party symbol on it [kinda ironic]). But again, I know very little about China and Chinese history (both past and now) to have worked on the timeline. But, the thought of combining that old timeline (more or less) into New Union is an integrating idea. I do have one thought on how it could potentially happen.
With the USSR continuing to exist, and its economy increasing within the decade, China would grow worried (as said by Yankovic). The main point may be that Gorbachev, moving the USSR towards a multilateral foreign policy, will recognize the government of Taiwan (which it had not prior, and the same as the USSR recognizing South Korea), and this really frustrates China. (This was an idea I had for this timeline long ago, just wanted to throw that in). This could bring to light the Two Chinas, leading the world to consider the positioning and the idea of Taiwanese independence gains global debate. (Here's where the this POD gets sticky) China will take action and launch an invasion of Taiwan (as it continues to be considered an option in OTL). This act will enrage the United Nations, the US, and even the USSR. While China would not be able to gain any part of the RoC, it will cause rioting in China, and leading to the revival of Tiananmen square and revolution. Tibet and maybe Uyghuristan declare their independence (much like the Soviet republics after the August Coup), leading to further disorder in China. Taiwan would ally themselves with Tibet (and maybe Hong Kong and Macau), and launch a two-front war against Communist China. It could potentially go as far as mainland china being divided once again between North and South. This could lead to Taiwan, Tibet, Hong Kong, and several liberated provinces of southern China to establish the "Federal Republic of China," and claim themselves to be the successor state and primary China.
I am getting ahead of myself, but this is my idea. Sounds kinda silly, but an interesting idea. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:20, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

The USSR recognizing Taiwan really isn't feasible, for much the same reasons as the USA won't do it.

China invading, or even trying to do so, is also unlikely - while it's a topic brought up often enough, any hints of it will bring US forces into the straits, and a single missile will bring them into the fighting. They may want Taiwan, but the Chinese aren't stupid.

China by the late 1980s was already becoming capitalist. They may hate both the USA and USSR, but they also are willing to work with them for their own gain.

Overall, however, the Chinese government falling, or even going to Civil War, is probably something that wouldn't happen. The Chinese military, unlike in say.... Egypt, where it is loyal to the state itself, not the party, is loyal to the party and the state. It will, as shown in 1991, follow orders when told to shoot. Sure, some more demonstrations and protests would be likely - but all it would lead to is some slight reforms and more dead.

Lordganon 18:32, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

The big reason that China couldn't invade Taiwan is that while their army is huge, their naval capability is pathetic, especially when compared to the US. My recommendation is have the continued presence of the USSR as a second superpower play out in the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis. I don't think there should be a US/PRC war of any kind, but my recommendation is that since China doesnt have its borders secure due to the plausible threat of a Soviet land invasion, perhaps the Soviets could begin encouraging Uyghur nationalists to rise up, causing the Chinese to face two threats at the same time, causing massive rioting and duress in China. These moves wouldn't lead to a Chinese military response, because all the PRC can do is bluff. Their defense spending is mainly to keep the military happy and to keep internal discontent down. The Soviets could take the opportunity to weaken China this way, using the strait crisis as an opening. Gatemonger 21:03, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

It'd be in one small, under-populated, area of China. If they can apply massive force to the area otl without any issues, they can do it here too. Lordganon 21:17, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

You're right in that the Chinese could still launch the missile at Taiwan if they wanted to; the difference here is that I believe the USSR's existence would lead to some unforseen ripples. Gatemonger 00:02, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Other Suggestions

After I saw your response, I became dissappointed none were chosen, so I have better ideas instead.

Iranian-Azerbaijani War: With the survivial of the Soviet Union, Azerbaijanis in Iran were demanding the government to seperate from Iran and join the Soviet Union through protests and boycotts. Iran, however, would not permit this, and brutally punished the people there. This action enraged Azerbaijan and the Soviet Union, which declared econmic sanctions against Iran along with freezing its assets. Angered, Iran broke all ties with the Soviet Union, but that made the movement stronger. The international community condemns Iran for its brutality and made countries and the United Nations placed economic sanctions against the country. Sonn, when diplomatic and economic measures failed to stop Iran, Azerbaijan requested the whole Soviet Union and the United Nations to become part of the war against Iran for its brutality against the Azerbaijani-separation movement, whcih was accepted. From March 1993 to April 1995, Iran and Soviet Union (with its allies aka Afghanistan, Turkey, CSTO, EU, NATO, various nations on the Arab Penninsula) would engage in a massive border conflict. Iran would send troops to the northern borders to combat the invasion, while troops from the Caucasian republics would batter the troops of the border of the Iranian Azerbaijan region. The USSR's allies would attack Iran from the southern part, except Turkey, which would attack from the West, and Afgahnistan, which would attack from the East. Realizing the army had become overwhelmed from the great attacks from all sides, Iran surrendered. In the Treaty of Tehran, the Iranian government was to hold the referendum for Iranian Azerbaijanis if they would support annexation by the USSR or stay with Iran. Since a majority voted annexation, the Iranian government declared its Azerbaijani region independence, which joined the Soviet Union immediatley. The war would leave the USSR and Iran official enemies since the United States and Israel.

Death of Osama bin Laden: After 9/11, the United States and the international community demanded Sudan to hand over Osama bin Laden, and other plotters of 9/11. Sudan, however, refused, and the War in Sudan began. However, Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 plotters escape to Somalia, but are forced to flee after the beginning of the War in Somalia. After capturing some of Al-Qaeda's leaders, the USSR and US were able to gain evidence on where Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 (and later the 2003 Metro Bombings in Moscow) are, who were located in Ethiopia. Days before the mission, Ethiopia was given word of a meeting to attend, that was kept secret from public On January 2nd, 2005, a squad combing Ethiopian, U.S. and U.S.S.R., troops invaded Osama Bin Laden's compound, officialy killing Osama and the 9/11 and Moscow bombing plotters. News of the event spreads to the world, and Soviets and Americans celebrated the event. Ethiopia then gave word of its cooperation in the mission and the secret meeting which was the planning for the raid on Osama's compound. The mission was a blow against Al Qaeda and evidence and secret info from the compound will lead to the capture and killing of other terrorist leaders.

Taiwanese War: Since the reformation of the Soviet Union, Gorbacev established relations with Taiwan for the first time, a move that angered China, who does not expect the USSR to establish relationswith Taiwan. When Gorbachev declared his support for Taiwanese independence, China declared war on Taiwan on July 1992, eventually annexing it, causing many Taiwanese to flee to other countries, including Southeast Asia, Japan, South Korea, USSR, Canada, Mexico, Chile, and the US. The move was angered by China's neigbors, the U.S., the USSR, the U.N., and the international community. The USSR, US, UN, and the rest of the international community declared economic sanctions and the freezing of its assests, causing the economy and all other aspects of China to be completly disrupted, causing hardships of its people, yet the government never bothered to retreat from Taiwan, causing people to resent the government. When economic and diplomatic measures fail to get China out of Taiwan, war was officially declared. On August, 3rd, 1993, an allaince led by the US and USSR with NATO, EU, CSTO, OAS, various South and Southeastern Asian countries, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand invaded the Taiwanese east coast. The Chinese responded by diploying troops to the area, but were quickly overwhelmed by the force of the coalition. North Korea joined China in the war, invading South Korea so other nations would get out of the fight. While South Korea and Japan had to leave the alliance to fight North Korea, the rest of the coalition move on. Overpowered and Outnumbered, Chinese troops fled the island by November 13th, 1993.

Second Korean War: When North Korea invaded South Korea to draw it out of the fight, South Korea, and Japan were forced to engage with Japan in the Second Korean War. During the war, no side was on the expansion mode, so fights were often common at the border. After the Taiwanese War, the US and USSR declared war against North Korea. Overwhelmed, North Korea was occupied by coalition forces in January 13th, 1994. After the war, it was officially declared Korea is once again united, but coalition troops remained in the area to restore order and develop the area.

Chinese Uprising: During the Taiwanese War, the Chinese people suffered great economic hardship, and rebelled against the government, demanding withdrawl from Taiwan, Because the government would not permit this, riots between the people and the army occured in most of China's cities. Some members of the Chinese army also rebelled, causing mass chaos. One day after the end of the Taiwanese War, rumors of a coup against the Chinese government reached the US and USSR. Interested, they supported the coup. On January 14th, the coup occured, with armed civilians, Chinese soldiers (supporters of the people), USSR troops and tanks, and the US airforce and troops surrounded the Beijing government section. After 13 hours of fighting between guards and Communist loyalists, the whole Communist government, including the president were captured and arrested. A new democratic government replaced the old one, supported by the US, USSR, various Asian nations, UN, and the international community. The new government also adopted the Soviet system of soverignity to East Turkestan, Tibet, and Inner Mongolia. A new era of China had started.

P.S. I was wondering about Mongolia. When I first visited this AltHist, it has been a part of the USSR, why not anymore?!

P.S.S. Sorry about the Guld War idea. I thought in occured after the POD.

P.S.S.S. Why aren't CSTO and NATO "buddies"?! 23:07, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry I disappointed you. Please understand, I try to look deeply into any subject before it can become canon. I also know this site promotes alternate history, but this timeline tries to look at an accurate picture, rather than making an Alien Space Bat (ASB) timeline.
  • Greater Azerbaijan: Funny thing... I thought about this too XD But sadly, I don't think it is that likely. First off, there isn't any movement for a "Greater Azerbaijan" (at least as far as I know). Second, there is a pretty big cultural difference between the Northern Azeri in the USSR and the Southern Azari of Iran. North Azari uses the Latin alphabet (but continues to use the Cyrillic in TTL), while the south uses Perso-Arabic. There are a lot more differences, but I think still wouldn't help (even if the USSR is not friendly with Iran as OTL Russia).
  • Osama bin DEAD!!!!!!!!!: You know, this is pretty much what I had in mind all along. Great minds think alike XD
  • Taiwan and China: As Lordganon has explained countless times, China is not as "moldable" as the USSR. Pretty much, trying any attempt to change China would be ASB.
  • Mongolia: I am really surprised as to how many people keep asking me about Mongolia. To sum it up, I did make Mongolia a republic; but when I brought it up on another website, all continued to state that Mongolia could not become a republic. For the USSR to add Mongolia would be just as messy as the US gaining Canada or Mexico (very, very messy).
  • NATO and CSTO: I didn't say they weren't buddies, I just said they weren't "bosom buddies." Despite the CSTO being more cooperative with NATO, they are still considered the "New Warsaw Pact." I just don't think that they would be willing to unite in a war (unless you count Super Hitler). Like OTL, Russia still isn't too cooperative with NATO or the west, so why would it be that different here.
Sorry to turn you down again (please don't take it personally). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:01, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

After reading this, I am kind of dissapointed once more. I really hoped for a united, democratic Korea and a democratic China. Is there anyway posible? Please tell me. 21:45, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

How about if you search Greater Azerbaijan movement on Google and see if you can find some good results? 14:45, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Pan-Sovietism and New Pan-Americanism

Before it got terminated, in the Propsoals for new union Republics, it explaned new Soviet republics from other countries. This gave me an idea of Pan-Sovietism, a movement in countries ally or bordering the Soviet Union, who se goal is to achieve unity with the country. This movement has grown in eastern and Southeastern European countries, Finland, Mongolia, North Korea, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, Gerogia, Armenia, and Turkey. Although Soviet governmental leaders expresed the desire to annex them, it is a controversy for some governments.

In the wake of Pan-Sovietism, a new movement, New Pan-Americanism, is formed. The goal is to unite the continents into a single country. Although US and its American neighbors have expressed the desire to annex them, they may inherit large problems, including large scale poverty, crime, disease, corruption, etc. Some governments have made efforts to eliminate these problems, in some countries good effort, but in others bad. Because the movement had also grown in American dependencies owned by European countries, they expressed the idea of letting them join the US. While it is controversial, it is becoming a supporting movement. 01:21, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

American-Soviet Joint Space Msiion

I was thinking of a American-Soviet joint mission to the moon. Do you like it? 01:34, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Democracy League

When I was visiting the Althist President McCain, I hatched a new idea after reading an article there called the Concert of Demcracies. The organization includes the world's democracies whose goal is to preserve demcracy and freedom and around the world and often assist the United Nations. Do you think this is a good idea? 01:37, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Israel in the New Union

In this timeline, do you think the USSR should be pledged to protect Israel like the US is doing in OTL? In this timeline, Nikolai pressures Israel to create a Palestinian state in exchange for protection from the USSR. Is this good? 01:40, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Answering all above

First off, there is no real need to keep making new sections (just makes it harder for me two answer them all). Let's keep all proposals in one section, okay.

  • "Pan-Sovietism": Pretty much, this sounds like any nations position to expand. It has no real purpose for this timeline, but I am pretty confident there would be "Pan-Sovietism" and "Pan-Americanism" in TTL, but only the extend that they exist in OTL.
  • Democratic League: What is this? I never heard of it. Do you have a link to it?
  • American-Soviet Moonshot: Not that I haven't thought about this already (and would highly support it), I would much like to leave this subject closed for a while. I would much rather see how OTL plays out before I add it to TTL.
  • Israel: During the Cold War, the USSR aligned themselves to Palestine (for obvious reasons). Like in the case of Korea and (to a smaller extent) Taiwan, the USSR would establish relations, but wouldn't take the position of protector for them. Granted, I am sure the USSR would want to help bring peace into the Middle East, but not in the manner that the US is doing.

--NuclearVacuum (Talk) 22:04, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Even more stuff


When I checked the 2010 section of the Talk PAge, there was a poll if Armenia should rejoin the Soviet Union. Since a majority said yes, can you do that? 14:38, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

China and Korea

Why don't you want to talk about China and/or Korea anymore? I really want to see both of them democratic and for Korea, united. Is there anyway posible?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 14:42, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Just to let you know, I have added to the Economy section in the Soviet Union article, do you like it? 19:24, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

New Republics to the Soviet Union

After checking the Autonomous Republics of the Soviet Union, the autonomous republics of Chukotka, Nenenstia, and Evenkia and the tree highest populated autonomus republics of the Soviet Union. Do you think this is poluasible?

P.S. About the Jewish A.O., I believe it should not be a republic nor autonomous, but rather dissolved. During the 1990s, the Soviet government encouraged people from the region to leave the Jewish AO and settle in the southern Siberian region. Is this good? 19:35, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

O.K., but what year? (Maybe the late 1990's or early 2000's) 21:37, September 15, 2011 (UTC)


As I mentioned above, lets keep multiple suggestions in one section (makes it easier for me to read and answer).

  • Armenia: I did suggest Armenia would potentially rejoin the USSR, but I changed my mind. I can't really explain it, other than the fact that Armenia has a better relationship with the USSR because they are not part of the USSR. I would rather the two remain strong allies, and leave reunification options open for a later date.
  • New republics: I would like to make it clear, I made that article pretty much for fun, not to give hopes of new republics at the present. Like mentioned in Armenia, I would rather leave these options open for the future.
  • Jewish AR/AO: I guess this could be highly possible (it is going to happen in OTL pretty soon).

--NuclearVacuum (Talk) 22:17, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

If that's so, can it be dismantled now (the Jewish AO)?


If you didn't know, while searching Russi, there was one autonomous republic you missed-Koryakia. If you didn't know, here's a link to know about it: 21:43, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

I am very well aware of Koryakia. Both the Chukchi of Chukotka and the Koryak of Koryakia decided to unite into one Autonomous Republic (since both people's are ethnically the same). This allowed both to do more within the USSR together than by themselves. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 22:18, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Where I got it

O.K., there is a link to what inspired me to propose the Democratic League: here it is: Concert of Democracies . 22:33, September 15, 2011 (UTC)


I was wondering about Cuba in this timeline. I know that Cuba's economic situation will be bettwer with the USSR surviving, but how do you think US should get along with Cuba? Does Gorbachev pressure Cuba and America to do so? Do they invade the country to destroy his unpopular reigne? What should it be? 14:41, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

I already have an idea for what will happen to Cuba. Stay tuned to find out. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:59, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

New Polls: Leningrad or Saint Petersburg

The reason I continued to use the name Leningrad for the city is because of this news article. It states that the vote for the name change in June 1991 was non-binding, so for it to be considered fact was not needed. It wouldn't be until September 1991 (well after the POD) that the name would be officially changed. I personally see no real problem with the name either way. My main concern is what this would mean for the flag of Russia. If the main city is to be renamed, who is to say that the tricolor wouldn't be adopted later on in a peaceful means. Also, what about the other cities which didn't gain their old names back (Kaliningrad and Krasnodar off the top of my head). Because of which, I think it would be fun to have a poll. Unlike my Armenia poll, this one will count, and I will follow the consensus.

As part of this poll, I am also going to put up a suggestion that I had in mind a long time ago, and I think it would be a pretty interesting change. I was thinking that rather than Saint Petersburg/Leningrad, the capital of the Russian Federation would have been moved to Yekaterinburg. It seems like an interesting idea, and here is why:

  1. Obviously, it is the hometown of Boris Yeltsin. After Moscow would be declared to no longer be the capital of Russia, he may have well placed a bid for his hometown. If the first President of West Germany can choose his home town of Bonn to be the capital, why not Yekaterinburg.
  2. It is a close as you can get to being the direct center of Russia. Especially during the parade of sovereignties, the rural areas of eastern Russia would feel greatly left out. So much so that Yekaterinburg declared themselves as the "Ural Republic," which was meant to be a republic within the Russian Federation (OTL). Maybe as a compromise, Yekaterinburg would become the capital to allow greater access to the rural east, as well as encouraging eastward expansion.

So again, this is my bid for a potential capital of the Russian Federation within the Soviet Union. So without further a due:

Which name should be the official name...

The poll was created at 01:40 on September 17, 2011, and so far 17 people voted.
Which name should be the official names...

The poll was created at 01:44 on September 17, 2011, and so far 16 people voted.
Which flag should be the official flag of the Russian Federation

The poll was created at 01:43 on September 17, 2011, and so far 17 people voted.
Which city should be the capital of the Russian Federation

The poll was created at 01:43 on September 17, 2011, and so far 17 people voted.

--NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:43, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Bonn was, in many ways, an outside decision, and a compromise. Not only that, but Yekaterinburg has such a stigma attached to it, that it would be unlikely.

Even though it was non-binding, it was still done anyways. There's no reason for that to change.

No reason to change Kaliningrad - simply put, there are no Germans left there. Going with that, there is no reason at all to go to the German name. Either name for Krasnodar works. Probably should have been two separate polls there.

Lordganon 02:39, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, I completely forgot about that (for Yekatarinburg that is). Still, somewhat of an interesting idea (location wise). The reason I put Kaliningrad and Krasnodar in the same poll is because it all or none. I would rather they both stay the same, or both change (not one or the other). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 02:50, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Notes for the future

I am letting you all know, I pretty much can guess how this poll will turn out. Because of which, I now have a good idea for this, and I am proud to announce some big things to be happening in the near future. Some compromises, and even a contest idea. All will be revealed soon. Until then, Vive l'URSS (figure this one out!) --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 03:33, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Transnistria or Pridnestrovie?

I know this is a pretty stupid thing to get worked up about, but curse my OCD. But, what should "this" Soviet republic be referred to in this timeline: Transnistria or Pridnestrovie. Obviously, the common English translation is Transnistria (as with the majority of the western world), while Pridnestrovie is the Russian and Ukrainian name. Transnistria obviously translates into "beyond the Dniester," while Pridnestrovie is the complete opposite. Ironically, the Moldavian name is "Nistrenia" (more or less meaning the "Land of the Dniester", "Dniesteria"), but this doesn't count too much since Romania still uses the term "Transnistria."

Here is a non-binding poll (just to get an idea what all of you think). Please answer on the basis of culture, not politics.

Which name (used culturally and not politically) do you think should be used?

The poll was created at 22:07 on September 19, 2011, and so far 15 people voted.

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.