Talk:Socialist Siberia (1983: Doomsday)

Archive

Fourteen missiles
I understand that Siberia was low-importance compared with the land west of the Urals, but that number nevertheless feels very, very low.

I really like the changes you have made and am excited to finally be reading them! Quesiton: was ShutUpNavi in any way involved in these sweeping changes to his part of the world? To tell the truth I haven't been able to follow the discussions. Benkarnell 11:20, November 2, 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Benkarnell is likely to be right — there are enough important military targets in Siberia, not to mention that Siberia and Central Asia would become the main theater of the Soviet-Chinese war. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 11:48, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with military targets,they should be mentioned,that's why I made an offhand remark about rebuilding hit military bases. I also mentioned in the Mongolian article that the Chinese fell apart internally with generals fighting against each other and that sort of war would either be short or nonexistent. ShutUpNavi made several very good remarks that I'm trying to currently address(the Kazakhstan issue for example)--Vladivostok 15:23, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Alaska invasion
I had thought the new consensus was that the people of western Alaska turned to the Soviets for aid, with nowhere else to go. That does make more sense. Because why would the ANZUS pact (there was no ANZC yet, properly speaking) "remain neutral" in so clear a violation of the sovereignty of one of their members? It was a mutual defense pact - the one circumstance in which it would never remain neutral would be a clear invasion. Benkarnell 11:40, November 2, 2009 (UTC)


 * My thoughts exactly. The Alaskans had nobody else to cooperate with anyway. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 11:50, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a couple of arguments in favor of the attack. You have to consider the new situation the Australians found themselves in. The United States was reduced to rubble with only Alaska and Hawaii being stable,the strength of the Soviet army was unknown,as were their remaining nuclear capabilities,the attack was a complete shock and it was only a few years after doomsday,they didn't want another war.--Vladivostok 15:17, November 2, 2009 (UTC)


 * How's this for a compromise: In 1983, after Anchorage was destroyed, some western Alaskan communities reached out to the Russian Far East and asked for aid. So by the mid 80s, there was already some Russian presence on the coast.  In 1988, Bush and the APA demand the Russians leave.  They send a relatively small ANZUS force to enforce their claim.  That's when the Russians respond with the big invasion.  Australia and New Zealand decide that it is not feasible to reconquer this remote territory that has been effectively Soviet for 5 or 6 years.  But the APA fights on, joining with local resistance fighters and stopping the Russian advance.  Finally the cease-fire partitions Alaska.  Benkarnell 17:25, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the idea. I'm a bit pressed for time right now,so I'll start writing tomorrow,or the day after that,and I'll incorporate these ideas.--Vladivostok 19:15, November 2, 2009 (UTC)


 * I pointed out my objection (fiercelY!!) against any Soviet/Siberian invasion and any (major) Siberian presence on the Main Talk page...!!

As the Alaska Article is still marked as proposal and I am going through the Soviet Siberia material now I would like to place some critical remarks on the SIberian attack on Alaska and the "Alaska territory" as a whole. Repeated by this: As the Alaska Article is still marked as proposal and I am going through the Soviet Siberia material now I would like to place some critical remarks on the SIberian attack on Alaska and the "Alaska territory" as a whole.


 * 1. motivation for Siberia? I have strong doubts that after a nuclear holocaust and after only a few after Doomsday the Siberian Government - barely able to have survived- would have any true motivation to get real and formal influence in Alaska...
 * VAST territories are around them on the same continent in Western and Southern direction, furthermore most of them old Soviet/Russian territory potentially welcomeing every Soviet Successor with open arms. This territory being full of resources and of future high potential would me as Siberian leader interest more ! And there NO force would be really able to set up resistance...
 * Alaska must be heavily radiated and nuked, given the important military infrastructure (radar, NORAD, Air Force, Nuclear Bomber airports etc.)


 * Alaska is seperated from Siberia by a harsh and COLD water. Every transportation and later military operations will face severe harshness-


 * I especially object the depicted Alaskan Invasion in 1989..reasons:


 * Military:ANZUS PAct/ANZUS order already placed in 1984 gathering a lot of military hardware from U.S. / NATO and a succesful reorganisation into the Commonwealt Army (even though not named that yet) should be fairly enough to 5 years later outclass or at least match any Siberian Expeditionary force, although I do not know that much about the Soviet Pacific Fleet and the capabilities...


 * Any tries in this direction from Siberia would be met with fierce and decisive resistance from the Provisional Bush Administration and Australia /New Zealand and the Alaskans as well.


 * Focussing on Mongolian, Mandchurian or other territories in the region does seem moch more realistics IMO, if you need sth. to happen.


 * Economy: **Imagine a government just reestablished a few years ago in country which is still rebuilding its economy in 1989...and heavily depending / interested on selling its raw materials and importing food...And simply asked: Who would pay the necessary funds for the large military operation?


 * Inner politics: I would suppose a population and especially the military (if not the generals, then the normal soldiers, see 1917 revolution) would never support such a military adventure. The forces would emphasize the importance of securing the homefront.

This a few arguments I would bring up against the Soviet/Siberian presence in Alaska in general and the depicted invasion in general.--Xi&#39;Reney 21:56, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * the further discussion I would like to be held on the place at the main talk page !! thank you --Xi&#39;Reney 18:07, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

New Map of Siberia
I noticed that you added a new map, and I think it's good. However it doesn't include the Siberian Alaska, so that should be fixed. --DarthEinstein 17:15, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * Darth,I can't take the credit for the map,Hellerick did it just as a reference and it's just temporary,a rough area where Siberia would be located,that's why there's no Alaska on it. You can use it as refrence for the world map,as well as the one Navi made for Kazakhstan,which I put up in the talk page.--Vladivostok 17:30, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a completed version of the map. I stopped making it, because I thought that it has to be completely redone. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 17:31, November 6, 2009 (UTC)



Well, I have remade the map.
 * The pink areas are the constituent republics of the Union:
 * The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic
 * The Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (including Kyrghyz Autonomous Oblast)
 * The People's Republic of Mongolia
 * The Chinese Federative Socialist Republic (consisting of the Uyghur Autonomous Region and the Manchu Autonomous Region)
 * The yellow areas are the territories controlled (more or less) by the Union:
 * The Ural Territory
 * The Alaskan Autonomous Territory
 * The dark gray areas are "the legal territory" of the Union. It is not formally claimed to be a part of the union (yet), but it is considered as lawfully belonging to it, since the Union is the legal successor of the Soviet Union, China, and Alaska. The Union authorities consider it a kind of an "exclusive economic zone". All the alternative governments and colonization activity on these territories are considered illegal.

— Hellerick 19:08, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * I love it,great map Hellerick. Just one small thing I want to run by you. Do you really think that the Uyghur's would really want to associate themselves with the Chinese? Considering the racial issues that have come up today?--Vladivostok 21:56, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the opinion of the Chinese has to be taken into account to. My idea of a compromise was not to include the words "Chinese" and "Uyghur" into the same title. The Chinese people can say that the live in the Chinese FSR, and the Uyghur people can say that they live in the Uyghur AR — and everyone is happy. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 03:12, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the reality of the situation - The Uyghur AR is thousands of miles away from the rest of Soviet China - it's pretty clear that unity between the two halves of the "Chinese FSR" will be illusory at best. I think that full separation of the Uyghur AR from China is actually quite likely.  Unless the Chinese FSR is more of a placeholder polity that exists on paper, and will only be given authority when its borders can actually extend to include Xinjiang/Uyghuristan.  Benkarnell 07:16, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in theory Uyghuristan is a subdivision of China, but I guess de facto it's a patchwork divided into Chinese and Uyghur lands, administrated by the Republican and the Regional authorities respectively. The Chinese authority exercises its power both in the Chinese lands of Uyghuristan and in Manchuria, and since the Union is absolutely loyal to the Socialist China, there are no technical problems about it. It's much easier than administrating the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in the OTL. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 07:33, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * So,should I move the Uyghur article and make references to the Manchurian part,how it was all renamed to the Chinese FSR? Even though I'd like the articles to remain the same,we could just add a Manchurian Socialist Republic,the areas shouldn't function as a single entity. --Vladivostok 09:38, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Coat of Arms


I have made a new version of the coat of arms. The hammer-and-sickle is replaced with a more common communist symbol — red star (so, the Chinese would not protest about alleged Sovietisation), and the motto is changed to "Труд, Социализм, Возрождение" ("Labor, Socialism, Revival"), since the Restoration, and not the World-Wide Revolution is what the Union cares about now. — Hellerick 05:03, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! I was thinking a different emblem was needed, but wasn't sure what to do.  Communist emblems have a definite aesthetic to them, but Alt-historians seem to have little interest in creatng new ones.  This one is very nice - thanks!  Benkarnell 07:17, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Love it,I'll put it up--Vladivostok 07:47, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Template
I have made this template, it could be useful:

— Hellerick 13:32, November 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the time to use the template, is not it? — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 15:11, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah,but I've been meaning to talk to you about that. We already agreed that there should be a separate space for Manchuria and a separate space for Uyghuristan. Furthermore,do the links go to the names of the pages I have made?--Vladivostok 15:14, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've updated the template. The blue links lead to your articles of course. If you think something else has to be changed, just go change it: Template:USSR (1983DD). BTW, adding this template automatically puts the page into Category:Socialist Siberia (1983: Doomsday). I'll update the map later. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 15:32, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent,well,it seems like our work is really coming along. Once again,I love the visuals you made,it really makes the articles interesting to read.--Vladivostok 15:38, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

China and Uyghuristan
I don't insist on Uyghuristan being a part of China. I would prefer it to be this way because the Chinese people (and implying the Union's status as China's successor) would be way more important for the Soviet authorities than the Uyghurs, but I am not going to argue about it. There are many much more insane things in this time line.

As for the article about China, I suppose there could be an article titled describing the fall of the PRC and ROC, and telling about the regimes that appeared after them. The China in the template links to the, not to , it is not supposed to be the same article. Just like in Alaska's case. — Hellerick 07:29, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not against the idea of a Chinese FSR, I just think that this isn't the right moment for it. Maybe in the future,when the USSR is able to acquire more land in China,then there could be some sort of a referendum on the matter. But for now,I think we should stick with this--Vladivostok 07:37, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if so, you can use the word "provisional" you seem to like so much :) Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 07:39, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe,don't tempt me:). The thing is,I want to finish these specific articles,because I have a few plans to make the USSR a bit more active on the world stage,and finishing up,making the articles approved is a prime objective.--Vladivostok 07:49, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * The map is updated, but I had to refresh the cache to see the changes. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 07:58, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent,now just to figure out a few details about the Ural Territory,whether or not the town I picked as a capital is feasible,the articles on the leaders,etc. But,at least the articles are shaping up nicely.--Vladivostok 12:52, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Renaming
Renames I suggest:


 * Union of Socialist Sovereign Republics → Union of Sovereign Socialist Republics, I dunno why, "Socialist Sovereign" just does not sound right. Maybe because "Sovereign Socialist" sounds a bit like "Soviet Socialist". And I still would prefer it to be a Commonwealth, not a union.
 * Heydar Aliyev → Geydar Aliyev, or even Geidar Aliev, because we should stick to Russian names in this time-line.
 * Alaskan Autnomous Territory, and Ural Territory → Alaskan Autnomous District and Ural District respectively, or probably we should use the Russian word okrug instead. The Russian word territoriya is not used in this sense.

We should stick to short article names:


 * Alaskan Autonomous Territory (1983: Doomsday) → West Alaska (1983: Doomsday) (and we should insist on renaming Alaska (1983: Doomsday) → South Alaska (1983: Doomsday))
 * Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (1983: Doomsday) → Kazakhstan (1983: Doomsday)
 * People's Republic of Mongolia (1983: Doomsday) → Mongolia (1983: Doomsday)
 * Uyghur Socialist Republic (1983: Doomsday) → Uyghuristan (1983: Doomsday)

So that we would not have to rename the articles every time we change the full name. — Hellerick 07:29, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're starting to confuse people with all the name changing,but yeah,some things need to be changed. Socialist Sovereign or Sovereign Socialist-hmm,I had my doubts about naming the country for the exact same reason. I guess the latter would be more appropriate. Now I just have to remember in which articles I changed all the names. Geydar would be more Russian,but we are making the articles in English,and keeping it in line with that would be more appropriate. Using okrug would make it more Russian,but it wouldn't be in the spirit of the English language. As for the rest of the names,we could drop the Republic part and all,but since there is no reason to change the names yet,at least not on my part,it could stay like this,until the next name change. Then we could drop the rest of the name if we wanted to.--Vladivostok 07:45, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Гейдар/Geydar is the name in Russian, Һейдар/Heydar is the name in Azerbaijani, there is no name like that in English. The question is what language we should transliterate this name from? I believe, we should transliterate from Russian, because Azerbaijani is a nearly extinct language in this time-line, and it has no official use. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 07:55, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,I named him Heydar because it says so on Wikipedia. I know this will sound stupid,but wouldn't he call himself Heydar? Considering he is from Azerbaijan?--Vladivostok 07:59, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * He called himself according to what language he was speaking in. The Russian language is intolerant to foreign phonemes, all the words/names must obey the Russian phonology. You can't just insert into a sentence a name with a sound that does not exist in the Russian language. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 08:09, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,we as English users use the name Heydar,at least from what I can tell. I am aware about foreign phonemes in Russian,I am from a Slavic nation myself,and I'm currently learning Russian. I think we can make a quite simple compromise. We can write the Russian name next to the English one in brackets.--Vladivostok 08:14, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is how the English name would look like? Aliyev already was an important statesman in 1983, and his name obviously appeared in English newspapers/reports etc. And it was transliterated from Russian, because it always came from Russian sources. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 08:24, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Ok,we'll change the name. Now,is there anything else we should watch out for?--Vladivostok 08:29, November 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * We English users write it as Heydar becausae we talk about him in the context of an Azeri leader. In TTL he would be considered a Russian leader.  (He probably hasn't even visited Azerbaijan in all these years, after all.)  The Soviet government would use the Russian form of his name, and their diplomats and press releases to the Anglosphere would use the Russian form as well.  Finally, using the Russian form shows one of those subtle linguistic changes htat can add depth to althistory.
 * I think that using the short form of country names in page titles is generally a good thing to do. So Kazakhstan, Mongolia, etc. etc. makes sense.   I don't think that "West Alaska" and "South Alaska" make sense, however, since nobody in TTL would ever refer to them that way.  The powers themselves just call their respective puppets "Alaska" and pretend the division is only temporary.  It would seem very Cold War for pro-ANZC people to call ANZC Alaska "Free Alaska"; its official name is the "Free State of Aaska", after al.  Neutral parties, like the South Americans, almost certainly use "Soviet Alaska" for the one, so I think that's a good page title.  For the other... "Commonwealth Alaska", "Australian Alaska" (inaccurte, but possibly in common use), "Anglo Alaska", or even "Free Alaska", though that last one shows a definite anti-Soviet bias that we might want to avoid.  Benkarnell 15:01, November 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * The situation with Alaskas is similar to the situation with Koreas and Germanys in the OTL. Both Koreas/Germanys called themselves "free" and the only legitimate ones. And yet for practical purposes they are/were distinguished as "North Korea"/"South Korea", "West Germany"/"East Germany". That's why I believe the names like "West Alaska" are rather plausible. Of course from formal point of view both Alaskas should claim to be lawfully representing Alaska in whole. Sure, we could call them "Siberian Alaska" and "Australian Alaska", but it sounds like something from the colonial age, and both powers would try to avoid such analogies. As for "Free Alaska"... well, it depends on the political views of the person who uses this name. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 19:25, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

East Turkestan

 * You are going to have to explain this to me, as I have heard Uyghurs being extremely religious people, and would not kindly join with Siberia if their religion was going to be suppresed. At the same time, Aliyev was a member of the old guard, and would not have instituted reforms for them, at least in regards to social issues. Maybe after his fall from power, but certainly not before. Lahbas 04:52, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,look at it this way. If you were/are a religious person,would you decline an offer from a benefactor after a nuclear exchange? I highly doubt it. They didn't join right away,it was gradual and after a lot of cooperation between the two sides. The Siberians could have easily offered some religious freedoms. I know that Aliyev is from the old guard,but I doubt that he was stupid. I don't think he would pass up a chance to enlarge and strengthen his country. A nuclear war would have a profound influence on one's thinking,I would think. You must undertstand the gravity of the situation. This may sound silly but,after Doomsday,"the more,the merrier" would be a welcome motto,excluding the bands of blood thirsty savages,I suppose.--Vladivostok 06:02, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Aliyev was perfectly fine with Islamization of Azerbaijan when it was under his rule in the OTL, why he would not be fine with Islamic Uyghuristan in this time-line? Not to mention that the Uyghurs lived in an atheist state for forty years already, and I don't think they would suddenly become intolerant to secularism. — Hellerick 06:10, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the point; they were intolerant of secularism. It is one of the principal reason why the Uyghurs are fightin for their independence, including religiously based groups, which Aliyev would not allow to organize. And in regards to Azerbajain, Aliyev was not in power when the country first gained its independence, and therefore had no influence over the intial, if somewhat disatrous reforms. (The Constitution allowed for religious freedom, though it still practicies extreme controls over the various institutions)


 * I don't see your point at all. Socialist Siberia is not as secular as Socialist China the Uyghurs already lived in. Why Aliyev would not allow some religious groups to exist? And Aliyev always was one of the key figures of Azerbaijan idependence. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 03:03, November 20, 2009 (UTC)