Talk:New Union/Archive 3

Flag contest: "union banners"
Greetings everybody. I am proud to announce the start of a new contest for the New Union timeline. I believe this is the first contest for the timeline, and I am quite exited. First off, a back story.

A while ago, I had an idea for the union republics. As someone with OCD, I think you can all understand why I am a huge fan of the SSR flags. Synchronized, standardized, uniformity. I am all for the republics wishing to move towards developing their own identities, but I found it rather sad that these flags would simply be thrown away into history. Than an idea struck. At least for Russia and the Ukraine in the waning days of the USSR, both republics would officially adopt two flags. As well as using their SSR flags, they also adopted national flags. Obviously, this would not last, and the national flags would rise as the sole flags. But for this timeline, why not have this "cooperation" continue.

I introduce the "union banners" (a working name). As you may have guessed, they are just the SSR flags (but without the red star). They are considered a secondary flag of their republic. Despite being a secondary flag, their modern use is very limited. The only way I can give an example would be... Imagine Canada. Originally, their national flag was a red ensign with the confederate shield. Today, it is the maple leaf flag. Just imagine Canada having two flags used officially. The red ensign would continue to be used as Canada's representation within the Commonwealth, while the Maple flag would be used for its sovereignty and everything else. I know it sounds confusing, so to simplify it more, these "union banners" are used primary for ceremonial purposes, and represent the republic within the USSR as a whole (while their national flag represents the republic as a sovereign entity).

Here is a list of "union banners" that are pretty much a given, plus several that I have designed. Excluding the nine ones already used prior and Karelia, I have designed ones for Chuvashia, Tatarstan, Udmurtia, and Yakutia (which are primarily based on proposed flags for those republics).

I have restrained myself from thinking of any further designs, because I would love to make designing a "union banner" for each republic as a contest.

Rules

 * The flags must have a standardized ratio of 1:2 (preferably 1200x600 px)


 * The color scheme is to be standardized by these colors:
 * {{legend|#cc0000|Red}}
 * {{legend|#007fff|Light blue}}
 * {{legend|#003399|Dark blue}}
 * {{legend|#009900|Green}}
 * {{legend|#ffd700|Gold}}
 * {{legend|#ffffff| White }}
 * New colors can be added, but any new color must be a direct color and not a variant of any other color or any color already mentioned. The color red is mandatory for all flag proposals. Thought it is not mandatory, it would be appreciated that red be the primary color for the flag (unless justifiable to choose another color). Please make note of any color change of this manner, and explain the reasoning in the Comments section below.


 * The flag must have a hammer and sickle in the upper-left hand corner of the flag, and must have a similar ratio to that of the other flags. It is not required to be gold in color, but it would be appreciated if any color change can be justified (as in the case of Georgia). Please make note of any color change of this manner, and explain the reasoning in the Comments section below.


 * You are allowed to make as many entries as you wish, but please limit it to one republic per user.


 * All entries must be titled as the following "File:REPUBLIC-USERNAME.SVG" (an example would be ""). I will personally change the file names of the selected designs upon the end of the contest.


 * It is greatly appreciated that the flag be in the vector format (SVG). But because many don't know how to do this, this is not a requirement and may be submitted in any format that Wikia will allow (PNG, JPG, GIF). I will personally convert the selected designs upon the end of the contest.


 * The following republics are off limits: Artsakh, Azerbaijan, Belorussia, Chuvashia, Karelia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pridnestrovie, Russia, Tajikistan, Tatarstan, Turkmenistan, Udmurtia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Yakutia. The following are off limits because there is already a design for them (as you can see in the boxes above). No proposals will be accepted for this republics.

Criteria
I will be judging the entries on the following criteria:


 * 1) Originality and Uniformity (the uniqueness of the flag, yet uniformed with the other flags)
 * 2) Patriotism (the flags ability to express the republic and union in a balanced manner)

Conclusion
The winning designs will have the privileged to be used in the timeline. The designs which are not used will be put into storage, allowing them to be used later on, or in other timelines for this website. All designers will be given a big thanks, and the appreciation form all.

This contest will officially end on October 1, 2011.

Entries
You may add all entries in the box below. It is appreciated that you add the name of the republic, as well as your signature.

Comments
I hope you all like the idea, and I am very eager to see how this contest will turn out. In all, have fun. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:54, September 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am letting everybody know that I have updated the rules. Several of the entries seem to be conflicting, so I made it easier to understand. Please look at them before adding any new ones. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 04:02, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, does this mean Pridnestrovie will get a non-union banner flag? ChrisL123 19:35, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Primary USSR flag change proposal: I recently designed a new flag for the Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics that is in the flag proposal gallery just above these comments. The red portion of the flag and the hammer & sickle obviously have the same meaning. I added two blue strips, one at the bottom and the other at the top. There is a total of ten starts, 5 on top and 5 on bottom, representing the original ten Republics in the New Union Constitution. Experiment632 23:20, September 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why yes it will. I have a design in my head that I think will look good. Just need to design in XD Thank you for reminding me. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 21:45, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but no thanks. I am quite happy with the flag already in use. I have absolutely no intention of changing it. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:46, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

you can add comments to flag designs in this section

End of contest
The contest is officially over. Since there wasn't a lot of entries, I have decided to leave this open for anybody who has an idea to post. I plan on now uploading several of my ideas I had to here.

As for the contest results, I have decided I will use the proposals for Gagauzia and Mari El (excluding the name on the flag). The proposal for Ossetia looks more like a "German SSR" flag to me, and this contest had nothing to do with making a new USSR flag. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:32, October 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's always possible to change the black in Ossetia's flag to the Soviet red, but if you have another idea for it that's perfectly fine. ChrisL123 01:45, October 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am really sorry about that. It just doesn't look right for the flag for Ossetia. I do have a design in mind, one which would be unique from the other SSR flags. Again, I am sorry if I disappointed you. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 02:17, October 2, 2011 (UTC)



Kalmykia. Lordganon 06:50, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Adout flag of Red (Soviet) Army. In fact, Soviet army had not its own flag and use Red Flag of USSR.

http://www.vexillographia.ru/russia/index.htm

2303

In the works
Hello everybody. I have been wanting to write this for a while now, but life and all. Anyway, there are a lot of changes to the timeline going to be taking place real soon. Adding new ideas, finishing up old projects, and more. Here are the two current projects that I am working on at the present.


 * Greater Karelia: After talking about it with Fedelede, will be getting a makeover. The biggest change will be that the republic will be admitted much earlier than previously stated, and will regain the Karelian Isthmus though compromise. I am also happy to announce that Fedelede may come onto the timeline as the Karelian expert and caretaker.




 * Iraq: It has already become canon, just not written out. I have been finalizing some things for Iraq, but I am happy to announce that it is looking great. For a reminder, the POD would involve the proposed coup against Hussein in 1995-ish would be taken seriously by the CIA (rather than OTL). The coup would be successful, and Hussein will be dead. A transition government takes place in Baghdad, and peace talks between the Kurdish separatists take place. By the end of the millennium, it would be agreed to reestablish Iraq as a federation of three republics. One Kurdish state, one Arab Sunni state, and one Arab Shia state (not to mention Baghdad becoming a federal district). My main focus was to finalize the borders, and I have even been looking into the naming issue. Here is a detailed idea for the three republics.
 * Kurdistan: Pretty much self explanatory. As part of compromise, it will be bordered to virtually govern the Kurdish-majority governorates and portions of another.
 * Babylonia: This would be the Shia-dominated state in southern Iraq. I think calling it anything except "Shiastan" is better. I chose "Babylonia" as a potential name. The name is a historic name for the region in the bible, and would be in sync with the other nations which also named themselves after biblical places (Syria and Israel).
 * Assyria: This would be the Sunni-dominated state in central Iraq. Just like Babylonia, Assyria is the biblical name for the region.

If anybody has any better names for these two republics, I would love to hear them. I will update this section with several of my new ideas later on. TTFN --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:36, September 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I did feel like calling Babylonia Basra (named for the largest city in the region of the same name), or Mesopotamia. -- RandomWriterGuy 01:34, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

I have to say Nuke, more of the Kurd areas would probably be in the Kurdistan section. Lordganon 22:48, September 29, 2011 (UTC)



Here's a detailed map showing the exact border choices I came up with. While the Shia-Sunni border is pretty easy to make, the Kurdistan border I have decided to create by compromise. Including the three governorates of Iraq (which are currently the ones which OTL Kurdistan occupy), Kurdistan would gain the Kurdish districts of Ninawa, and half of Kirkuk. Kirkuk seems to be the major dispute between the Kurds and Sunnis, so I think a compromise would be best for this situation. A strait line (represented by the red line in the map) would divide the of the Kirkuk Governorate into two. The Kurds gain the north half (and the capital of Kirkuk, while the Sunnis gain the southern half. The main reason I believe compromise would be on the table is for one thing... oil. While Russia would be willing to compromise (since they had all to gain and nothing to loose), I think the Sunnis would not be willing to hand over all of Iraq's oil fields to the Shia and Kurds (even though they are in the same country). Though this doesn't include all the Kurds, it includes the majority of them, and Kirkuk; while at the same time, giving the Sunnis enough oil reserves to make them happy.

However, I found this map which seems to suggest that Iraq has much more oil in the western-half of the country. I can't find out anything more about this, but this could be an interesting thing for this timeline. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:07, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the oil is really spread out pretty good between the three sections. Each is just greedy, y'know?

The area I meant, Nuke, is that large spurt heading south on the eastern border. No real oil/gas fields in the area, and a majority Kurdish population. Just doesn't make much sense for it not to be in the Kurd region.

Lordganon 01:15, October 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah... I see. I actually came across some maps of Kurdistan (OTL), and I would really like to see them be used for Kurdistan in TTL. Say hello to Kurdistan 2.0. I've based in on this map and this map. I really like how this one came out. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:36, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Lordganon 06:11, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Name change poll
After thinking about it, and further encouraged by the comment I got, I am getting more interested in another naming idea I had for the two Arab republics. My idea: Lower Mesopotamia and Upper Mesopotamia. I don't know why, but I love the idea of using "upper" and "lower" in regional names (maybe because they are rarely used these days). Since most names with these "articles" are based primarily on rivers, Mesopotamia seems like a good candidate for these names.


 * Upper Mesopotamia is the Sunni state in the north (upper referring to the fact that it is further up from the mouth of the rivers).
 * Lower Mesopotamia is the Shia state (lower because it is lower down the rivers).
 * Mesopotamia can thereby be used as a united term for Iraqi Arabs (regardless of religious belief).

It makes more sense. "Mesopotamians" is often used to refer to Arab Iraqis in many aspects. Babylonia seems like a weird name, and Assyia is often used to describe to the Christians in northern Iraq (the Assyrians).

But I have decided to make a poll.

Which naming group do you want to be used. Assyria and Babylonia Lower Mesopotamia and Upper Mesopotamia Other (write suggestion below)

Have fun. Vote or die! --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:53, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of the United Democracies (and Others)
(Note: From now on, I'll only send a post here once a week)

I want you to give you info on the new article I created-the United Democracies.

The United Democracies is similar to the United Nations, except that the organization is made out of liberal republics and has fewer flaws than the United Nations.

United Nations is the world's most important organization, but has major flaws, including the fact it is too bureaucratic, too slow and too incompetent in solving urgent humaniatarian or political crisis situations.

During the Rwanda Genocide, the world's liberal democracies wanted to use sanctions or military inteference, but the nations who opposed this plan were authoritan governments and dictatorships. The USSR and US realize that the United Nations' goal is to spread democracy around the world, but this goal, along with others, have been hindered by authoritan governments.

Knowing they have to take the situation in their hands, every liberal democracy creates an organization known as the United Democracies, with similar goals as the UN, but the organization bans authoritan governments or dictatorships, so that the goal of preserving and spreading freedom can be achieved.

As the years pass, more nations (new democraitc governments) began to join the organization. And in 2000, it is offical that the UD (short for the Un ited Democracies) is a more reliable organization then the UN.

Do you like this idea? (P.S. This is based on the Concert of Democracies; I am trying to nake this as my own as possible.)

I also have a few questions for this Timeline: RandomWriterGuy 19:16, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) How can Bin Laden get to Somalia if he has to crosss multiple borders? Getting to Pakistan was easy for him in OTL, but to reach Somalia, he has to cross several nations, and may get captured in his journey. The sea is also a bad option, since warships can capture him too. So since Somalia will have many dangers just to reach there, how will bin Laden get there?
 * 2) Will the U.S. economy recover and be off better than OTL?
 * 3) Will crime decline in the USSR?
 * 4) Will the timeline of technology be effected (aka new stuff invented earlier or later)?


 * For the record, there is nothing wrong with writing here more than once a week. The only thing I had trouble with was the fact that you uploaded your ideas in multiple sections. Do as I do, make one section and make a bullet list (makes it easier to keep track of ^_^).


 * I have had a long day to try and get the UD into my head. So far, I am beginning to get its main idea, but still a little fishy to me. So far, everything seems okay, and I can see Gorbachev going along with the idea, especially around the end of his term as President. The only things I would like to suggest and state are...


 * I can see English, French, Spanish, and Russian being the dominant languages, but why Portuguese? While Brazil and Portugal would be prominent members, not too sure if this is enough to make it a dominant language. But again, my love is in Russian, not Portuguese... so maybe I should just shut up. If I may make a suggestion, I think German should be added, because the [now] united Germany would play an important role in this organization (I would assume). The German name would be Vereinte Demokratie (by the way).
 * Bullet lists are cool.
 * My butt hurts.


 * Other than that, I am beginning to like the idea. My only question would be... is this organization a cooperator with the UN, or a rival? I also hope you don't mind, I added a proper infobox for the article. I would also suggest taking a look at the global map I made for the timeline. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:36, September 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Before I forget to answer them:
 * The question on Bin Laden makes pretty good sense. It makes even less sense when the nation bordering the two is a major Soviet ally. I guess we need to look further into this.
 * From what I have read on alternate history forums, the US economy would not begin to fail as in OTL. At the very least, it would go threw a minor recession. But my understandings on economics is practically none.
 * My focus has been more on politics and not too much cultural. But if I had to guess, the economic positives and a higher moral, I would be confident that crime would not be as rampant as it was in the 1990s.
 * I suppose so. I have already had in mind two technological expansions for the USSR. These include an expanding car industry which become more global than OTL, and the expansion of the GLONASS system (the Soviet's response to the US' GPS system). I also though it would be interesting that because SAKA is more focused on the people, they would make the GLONASS system available to the people of the USSR much earlier than the US did in OTL. When I mean "avaliable," I am referring to the people being able to pinpoint their location within centimeters, rather than the first GPS systems for the US.

--NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:49, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you supported my UD article, and I'm here to respond from your message. Yes, I am thinking German can be added, but due to the large number of its speakers, Portuguese is why I chose it, but for the same reason, I migh add Japanese.'

To answer your question whether the UD is an ally or rival of the UN, the UD is an ally of the UN (and the UD acts as a part of the UN). For example, during the War on Terror, both the UD and UN supported the war. But when the UN fails to make the best decision for handling ant crisis, the UD takes the crisis in their own hands. Here are some examplese (and possible New Union proposals):

Venezula: Hugo Chavez has been accused by the international community for supporting drug cartels in Colombia. After a terrorist bombing in government buildings in Cali, Colombia during 2008, January 17th, Colombia accused Venezula of this, along with the international commun ity. The US and USSR want to declare war on Venezula to stop Hugo's injustice. But other nations refused this, which were authoritarian governments. Because Colombia's crisis was fueled by Hugo and the Colombian government seeking revenge, the UD decides to take control of the situation and declares war on Venezula. After months of fighting, Hugo is outsed from power and a new, democratic government takes place.

Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe is in a deteriorating situation, yet its leader, Mugambe, has ignored this. In order to end such injustice, the international community has pressured Mugambe to hand power to Tsvangirai. After months of pressure, Mugambe agreed, but later tried to assasinate him, forcing Tsvangirai and his family to flee to South Africa. Angered, the US and USSR want military action to destroy the Mugambe government, but China opposed this, forcing the UD to take the situation in their hands. After months of fighting, Mugambe is outsed from power, and Tsvanirai takes power.

I really hope this answers your question.

RandomWriterGuy 19:17, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

Balance of Power
Hi, I wanted to make a broad governing statement that might help you extrapolate what happens after the New Union Treaty. Sure, the Cold War might be over. But in ttl, the Soviet Union still went through a period of weakness in which the central government sought to consolidate its power under a new framework. This was the only reason that the Soviets would have gone along with the American model and conformed to the West. It was likely a tactic to go along with the temporary unipolarity of the international system, which became bipolar once more after the USSR's consolidation and the St. Petersburg Compromise. Once this occured, a balance of power would have to be maintained somehow.

I propose the easiest way to maintain the balance being an arms reduction treaty. The USA, a maritime power, would have to put a cap on its expeditionary forces, while the USSR, a predominantly land-based power, would have to put a cap on the number of naval vessels that could be deployed. Satellite technology would be developed to help enforce this balance, making sure that the opposing sides are keeping up to their treaty obligations.

A whole Neutral Bloc, in addition to what you have already in ttl could be created surrounding the Soviet Union and including some North American countries, like China, Mexico, and Iran. These would be powers that didn't wish to be part of either camp and would seek support from the superpowers regardless of alignment. They would also have the side-effect of containing the two superpowers geopolitically, balancing between both powers while holding back their power.

What do you think? This would maintain the bipolarity of the Cold War, but I could see a WWIII sparking easily. Another option, a little less realistic IMO, is to have a formal alliance between the superpowers, although this type of arrangement seems too much like friendship. It's up to you. Any thoughts? Also, I think having an organization containing all the world's democracies isn't viable with your timeline, so I recommend you get rid of that. --Gatemonger 22:58, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Stuff That Is So Long It Can't Fit Into My Previous Article
I really want to tell you about some important things. Now, I had to put this separate because it would take so long to make.

UD Membership:1. Canada

2. United States

3. Mexico

4. Belize

5. Guatemala

6. Honduras

7. Nicaragua

8. El Salvador

9. Costa Rica

10. Panama

11. Bahamas

12. Jamaica

13. Dominican Republic

14. Antigua & Barbuda

15. St. Kitts & Nevis

16. Dominica

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">17. St. Lucia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">18. St. Vincent & the Grenadines

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">19. Barbados

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">20. Grenada

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">21. Trinidad & Tobago

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">22. Guyana

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">23. Suriname

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">24. Colombia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">25. Ecuador

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">26. Peru

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">27. Bolivia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">28. Paraguay

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">29. Uruguay

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">30. Brazil

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">31. Chile

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">32. Argentina

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">33. Mali

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">34. Senegal

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">35. Cape Verde

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">36. Sierra Leone

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">37. Liberia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">38. Ghana

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">39. Benin

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">40. Ethiopia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">41. Sao Tome and Principe

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">42. Republic of the Congo

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">43. Tanzania

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">44. Angola

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">45. Zambia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">46. Malawi

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">47. Mozambique

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">48. Seychelles

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">49. Comoros

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">50. Mauritius

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">51. Namibia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">52. Botswana

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">53. South Africa

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">54. Lesotho

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">55. Australia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">56. New Zealand

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">57. Papua New Guinea

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">58. Vanuatu

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">59. Nauru

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">60. Tuvalu

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">61. Kiribati

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">62. Samoa

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">63. Tonga

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">64. Indonesia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">65. Philippines

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">66. Vietnam

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">67. Laos

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">68. Cambodia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">69. South Korea

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">70. Japan

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">71. Maldives

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">72. India

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">73. Bangladesh

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">74. Afghanistan

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">75. South Yemen

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">76. Israel

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">77. Iraq

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">78. Turkey

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">79. Georgia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">80. Armenia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">81. Cyprus

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">82. Mongolia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">83. Soviet Union

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">84. Estonia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">85. Latvia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">86. Lithuania

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">87. Norway

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">88. Sweden

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">89. Finland

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">90. Denmark

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">91. Ireland

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">92. Iceland

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">93. United Kingdom

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">94. Romania

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">95. Bulgaria

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">96. Greece

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">97. Albania

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">98. Yugoslavia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">99. Croatia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">100. Slovenia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">101. Hungary

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">102. Austria

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">103. Czechoslovakia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">104. Poland

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">105. Germany

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">106. Netherlands

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">107. Belgium

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">108. Luxembourg

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">109. Liechtenstein

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">110. Italy

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">111. San Marino

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">112. Malta

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">113. France

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">114. Spain

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">115. Portugal

Here’s another list of countries that join the organization over time and how and when:

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">1. Taiwan: 1995, February 3rd (UD allowed it to join under certain conditions)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">2. Switzerland: 1995, May 1st (Was interested in the UD, though it did not want to get involved much)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">3. Egypt: 1995, September 15th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">4. Vatican City: 1995, December 1st (UD allowed it to join under certain conditions)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">5. Cuba: 1996, October 4th (When the political reforms finally were in effect)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">6. Singapore: 1998, September 5th (Government made reforms when it began to get interested in the UD)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">7. Kenya: 1998, October 7th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">8. Rwanda: 1999, May 13th (Political situation stable and democratic enough)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">9. Burundi: 1999, May 13th (Political situation stable and democratic enough)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">10. Hong Kong: 1999, August 12th (Interested in the UD, though decision was approved by China)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">11. Macau: 1999, August 12th (Interested in the UD, though decision was approved by China)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">12. Uganda: 1999, September 21st (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">13. Kuwait: 1999, November 14th (Government made reforms when it began to get interested in the UD)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">14. Qatar: 1999, December 1st (Government made reforms when it began to get interested in the UD)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">15. UAE: 2000, January 16th (Government made reforms when it began to get interested in the UD)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">16. Thailand: 2000, July 1st (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">17. Fiji Islands: 2000, July 24th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">18. Solomon Islands: 2000, August 4th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">19. Jordan: 2000, October 13th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">20. Somalia: 2009, September 11th ( Political situation was soon stable enough for democracy)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">21. Sudan: 2009, September 11th (Political situation was soon stable enough for democracy)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">22. Tunisia: 2011, March 19th (Zine El Abidine Ben Ali resigned as President, allowing a new, democratic government to form)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">23. Libya: 2011, September 8th (Rebel side ousted Qaddafi, allowing a new, democratic government in the country)

<p style="margin-left:.25in">I do have possible proposals, including:

<p style="margin-left:.25in">Haiti: 1996, April 13th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="margin-left:.25in">Venezuela: 2008, July 13th (Hugo’s overthrow allowed a new liberal democracy)

<p style="margin-left:.25in">Zimbabwe: 2011, February 9th (Mugabe’s overthrow allowed a new liberal democracy)

<p style="margin-left:.25in">American and Soviet Spheres of Influence:

<p style="margin-left:.25in">I was wondering that if you can make a map showing the American and Soviet spheres of influence. That way, I can know who’s on the USSR’s side and who’s on the US’s side.

<p style="margin-left:.25in">I also have a proposal for two organizations: SCSTO (Soviet Collective Security Treaty Organization) and the ACSTO (American Collective Security Treaty Organization). The members of the two organizations will represent the sphere of influence they are in. (Nations in the American Sphere of Influence will be in the ACSTO, and Nations in the Soviet Sphere of Influence will be in the SCSTO) Because of this NATO would be disbanded and incorporated into the ACSTO. For the Neutral Bloc, if they are going to remain neutral from both organizations, I believe they should no longer be in the Soviet Sphere of Influence.

<p style="margin-left:.25in">Pashtunistan:

<p style="margin-left:.25in">Because this government is run by radical Islamists, I was wondering how that will affect the War on Terror. Supporting and praising the 9/11 and Moscow Metro Bombing attacks, they opposed the War in Sudan, but when the War in Somalia occurred, Pashtunistan invaded Afghanistan to draw the Soviets from the war, causing the third war in the War on Terror, the War in Pashtunistan, where the country was quickly overrun by Afghan and Soviet troops, but the Pashtuns were also supported by the Iranian and Pakistani governments, straining their relationship with the Soviet Union. Eventually, the Islamic regime is rid of in Pashtunistan, and the Soviets fight insurgencies in the country.

<p style="margin-left:.25in">Compromise before the St. Petersgrad Compromise:

<p style="margin-left:.25in">I do feel that autonomous republics under 600,000 will not be able to get their populations up quick enough to become republics. So in this compromise, the USSR makes this compromise to those ASSRs so they don’t have to wait, since their populations were small. Republics over 600,000 will just have to wait.

<p style="margin-left:.25in">Religion (Christianity fastest growing religion?):

<p style="margin-left:.25in">I am not trying to be offended here, but I thought this because with the reformation of the USSR devout Soviet Christians are more willing to spread their religion. As a result, many Christians in the USSR began to travel worldwide to spread their religion, causing Christianity, not Islam to be the fastest growing religion.

<p style="margin-left:.25in">I would love to give you more, but this is all what I can think of. Good luck!

<p style="margin-left:.25in">RandomWriterGuy 23:21, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

<p style="margin-left:.25in">You may want to add a list of suspended/kicked off nations, if there were some unstable ones (such as in Africa) where the legit government was overthrown. LurkerLordB 23:38, September 28, 2011 (UTC) -->

Some More Stuff That Took So Long To Make
I really want to tell you about some important things. Now, I had to put this separate because it would take so long to make.

UD Membership:

To give you the number of nations who joined at the first meeting in the organization, here they are:


 * I have hidden the list (but it is still here). The reason is because he way you coded it glitches my computer, and I am too lazy to fix over a hundred nations.<!--

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">1. Canada

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">2. United States

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">3. Mexico

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">4. Belize

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">5. Guatemala

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">6. Honduras

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">7. Nicaragua

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">8. El Salvador

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">9. Costa Rica

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">10. Panama

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">11. Bahamas

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">12. Jamaica

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">13. Dominican Republic

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">14. Antigua & Barbuda

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">15. St. Kitts & Nevis

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">16. Dominica

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">17. St. Lucia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">18. St. Vincent & the Grenadines

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">19. Barbados

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">20. Grenada

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">21. Trinidad & Tobago

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">22. Guyana

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">23. Suriname

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">24. Colombia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">25. Ecuador

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">26. Peru

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">27. Bolivia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">28. Paraguay

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">29. Uruguay

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">30. Brazil

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">31. Chile

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">32. Argentina

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">33. Mali

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">34. Senegal

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">35. Cape Verde

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">36. Sierra Leone

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">37. Liberia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">38. Ghana

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">39. Benin

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">40. Ethiopia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">41. Sao Tome and Principe

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">42. Republic of the Congo

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">43. Tanzania

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">44. Angola

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">45. Zambia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">46. Malawi

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">47. Mozambique

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">48. Seychelles

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">49. Comoros

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">50. Mauritius

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">51. Namibia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">52. Botswana

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">53. South Africa

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">54. Lesotho

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">55. Australia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">56. New Zealand

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">57. Papua New Guinea

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">58. Vanuatu

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">59. Nauru

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">60. Tuvalu

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">61. Kiribati

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">62. Samoa

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">63. Tonga

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">64. Indonesia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">65. Philippines

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">66. Vietnam

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">67. Laos

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">68. Cambodia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">69. South Korea

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">70. Japan

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">71. Maldives

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">72. India

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">73. Bangladesh

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">74. Afghanistan

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">75. South Yemen

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">76. Israel

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">77. Iraq

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">78. Turkey

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">79. Georgia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">80. Armenia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">81. Cyprus

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">82. Mongolia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">83. Soviet Union

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">84. Estonia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">85. Latvia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">86. Lithuania

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">87. Norway

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">88. Sweden

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">89. Finland

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">90. Denmark

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">91. Ireland

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">92. Iceland

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">93. United Kingdom

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">94. Romania

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">95. Bulgaria

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">96. Greece

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">97. Albania

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">98. Yugoslavia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">99. Croatia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">100. Slovenia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">101. Hungary

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">102. Austria

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">103. Czechoslovakia

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">104. Poland

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">105. Germany

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">106. Netherlands

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">107. Belgium

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">108. Luxembourg

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">109. Liechtenstein

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">110. Italy

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">111. San Marino

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">112. Malta

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">113. France

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">114. Spain

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">115. Portugal

Here’s another list of countries that join the organization over time and how and when:

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">1. Taiwan: 1995, February 3rd (UD allowed it to join under certain conditions)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">2. Switzerland: 1995, May 1st (Was interested in the UD, though it did not want to get involved much)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">3. Egypt: 1995, September 15th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">4. Vatican City: 1995, December 1st (UD allowed it to join under certain conditions)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">5. Cuba: 1996, October 4th (When the political reforms finally were in effect)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">6. Singapore: 1998, September 5th (Government made reforms when it began to get interested in the UD)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">7. Kenya: 1998, October 7th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">8. Rwanda: 1999, May 13th (Political situation stable and democratic enough)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">9. Burundi: 1999, May 13th (Political situation stable and democratic enough)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">10. Hong Kong: 1999, August 12th (Interested in the UD, though decision was approved by China)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">11. Macau: 1999, August 12th (Interested in the UD, though decision was approved by China)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">12. Uganda: 1999, September 21st (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">13. Kuwait: 1999, November 14th (Government made reforms when it began to get interested in the UD)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">14. Qatar: 1999, December 1st (Government made reforms when it began to get interested in the UD)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">15. UAE: 2000, January 16th (Government made reforms when it began to get interested in the UD)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">16. Thailand: 2000, July 1st (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">17. Fiji Islands: 2000, July 24th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">18. Solomon Islands: 2000, August 4th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">19. Jordan: 2000, October 13th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">20. Somalia: 2009, September 11th ( Political situation was soon stable enough for democracy)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">21. Sudan: 2009, September 11th (Political situation was soon stable enough for democracy)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">22. Tunisia: 2011, March 19th (Zine El Abidine Ben Ali resigned as President, allowing a new, democratic government to form)

<p style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">23. Libya: 2011, September 8th (Rebel side ousted Qaddafi, allowing a new, democratic government in the country)

<p style="margin-left:.25in">I do have possible proposals, including:

<p style="margin-left:.25in">Haiti: 1996, April 13th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="margin-left:.25in">Venezuela: 2008, July 13th (Hugo’s overthrow allowed a new liberal democracy)

<p style="margin-left:.25in">Zimbabwe: 2011, February 9th (Mugabe’s overthrow allowed a new liberal democracy) -->

<p style="margin-left:.25in">American and Soviet Spheres of Influence:

<p style="margin-left:.25in">I was wondering that if you can make a map showing the American and Soviet spheres of influence. That way, I can know who’s on the USSR’s side and who’s on the US’s side.

<p style="margin-left:.25in">I also have a proposal for two organizations: SCSTO (Soviet Collective Security Treaty Organization) and the ACSTO (American Collective Security Treaty Organization). The members of the two organizations will represent the sphere of influence they are in. (Nations in the American Sphere of Influence will be in the ACSTO, and Nations in the Soviet Sphere of Influence will be in the SCSTO) Because of this NATO would be disbanded and incorporated into the ACSTO. For the Neutral Bloc, if they are going to remain neutral from both organizations, I believe they should no longer be in the Soviet Sphere of Influence.

<p style="margin-left:.25in">Pashtunistan:

<p style="margin-left:.25in">Because this government is run by radical Islamists, I was wondering how that will affect the War on Terror. Supporting and praising the 9/11 and Moscow Metro Bombing attacks, they opposed the War in Sudan, but when the War in Somalia occurred, Pashtunistan invaded Afghanistan to draw the Soviets from the war, causing the third war in the War on Terror, the War in Pashtunistan, where the country was quickly overrun by Afghan and Soviet troops, but the Pashtuns were also supported by the Iranian and Pakistani governments, straining their relationship with the Soviet Union. Eventually, the Islamic regime is rid of in Pashtunistan, and the Soviets fight insurgencies in the country.

<p style="margin-left:.25in">Compromise before the St. Petersgrad Compromise:

<p style="margin-left:.25in">I do feel that autonomous republics under 600,000 will not be able to get their populations up quick enough to become republics. So in this compromise, the USSR makes this compromise to those ASSRs so they don’t have to wait, since their populations were small. Republics over 600,000 will just have to wait.

<p style="margin-left:.25in">Religion (Christianity fastest growing religion?):

<p style="margin-left:.25in">I am not trying to be offended here, but I thought this because with the reformation of the USSR devout Soviet Christians are more willing to spread their religion. As a result, many Christians in the USSR began to travel worldwide to spread their religion, causing Christianity, not Islam to be the fastest growing religion.

<p style="margin-left:.25in">I would love to give you more, but this is all what I can think of. Good luck!

<p style="margin-left:.25in">RandomWriterGuy 01:32, September 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * The idea of that American sphere grouping is, honestly, ridiculous. The Soviet one staying intact is bad enough, but you're talking about independent countries. They would never agree to something, especially named almost the same as Soviet one.


 * The idea that the Soviets would invade an area that they pulled out of like that is even worse. That's like shooting yourself in the foot, stopping the bleeding and getting it almost healed, and then doing it again.


 * There are reasons for Islam to grow faster. It has absolutely nothing to do with the religion spreading. Which won't change.


 * The terms of the compromise are different than what you suggest. Irregardless, your belief holds little truth to it.


 * And, overall, the idea that, even atl, the Americans and Soviets would both join such a thing makes no sense. The American people and government would never do it.


 * And, quit that format stuff, please. All it is is extra garbage that clutters the page. -- Lordganon 03:26, September 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Lordganon. In fact, he took the words right out of my mouth (more or less). While there will be several Soviet allies that would be willing to continue cooperation with the USSR, there is no way that all of them would be willing to spark a second Cold War. I am very happy the way NATO, the CSTO, and the Neutral Bloc are the way they are. I have no intentions of changing what is canon for them, nor do I have any intentions of them being dissolved to form a SCSTO or an ACSTO.


 * I was also going to be bringing this up, what exactly is the United Democracies. I am supportive of an organization that works on American-Soviet cooperation, but what exactly are they cooperating on? Do you really expect that this organization would be "declaring war" on other nations? That is one level of crazy, but the other thing is that the American and Soviet definition of democracy can be two different words. I also have some concerns for the two nations that you used as references: Zimbabwe and Venezuela. While I know nothing about Zimbabwe, Venezuela would most likely have had cooperation with the USSR (because Chavez is socialist). Granted, I am confident that the USSR would be against him supporting drug cartels and supporting acts of terrorism upon his neighbors, but I am pretty confident that the USSR would not agree to launch any attack on a nation without hard evidence. At the very least, they would agree on some sanctions, but nothing more. I like to see the USSR more or less like OTL Russia. Despite the fact that Russia has been moving back and fourth between nostalgia and progress, they still haven't launched an invasion of any nation (other than what once made up the USSR). Gorbachev feared that the USA was moving towards becoming the "global police," taking it into their hands to protect the world. With the USSR gone, Gorbachev's fears came true. With the USSR in tact, I am confident that they would work on counteracting the USA in many ways. I am confident they would support them on some wars (like the war of Sudan after 9/11), but nothing else without evidence (like OTL Iraq, or your suggestion of Venezuela).


 * I would also like to leave the aspects of religion to their bare basics for this timeline.


 * As for Pashtunistan, absolutely not. I consider the divide between Afghanistan and Pashtunistan to be something like Cyprus in OTL. While I agree the Pashtunistan would be a semi-safe haven for terrorists organizations, I highly dough they would go to war against the north, and fear a second Soviet war. Neighboring Pakistan and Iran help keep Pashtunistan surviving, I dough they would need to consider a war.


 * That is pretty much it. And for Lordganon... what do you mean by "The Soviet one staying intact is bad enough"? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:03, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Please, I am super sorry for the back texting content. It was all done on Microsoft Word. Also, I also apoligize for my bad ideas.

But I was thinking if you can give the list of nations in the American Sphere, and those in the Soviet sphere. That way, people will know which country is on which side.

For the United Democracies, what the Americans and Soviets are co-operating on in this organization is similar to the United Nations. The United Democracies acts as a part on the UN, but, here's a acatch. If the UN fails to make a decision in order to handle a political or other severe crisis, than the United Democracies steps in and takes care of the problem. The UD is aiming for peac like the UN, in a similar matter, but with more success.

--RandomWriterGuy 17:11, September 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. No need to be sorry. You have to break some eggs to make an omelet. As for the spheres of influence... there isn't really any (at least not in the manner you want). Rather than a definitive sphere, all nations cooperate equally with the US and USSR. For instance... France. They are a member of NATO, yet equally worked with both the US, UK, and the USSR. But if you really need a defined border, I would probably say that... the former communist states (other than China) and pro-socialist nations (like Venezuela and even Nicaragua) are part of the Soviet sphere, while the US sphere would probably remain in North America and the Pacific region. Western Europe could also be in the US sphere, but the EU is currently growing into a power of itself. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 20:21, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Nuke, what it is, for all purposes, is a "New Warsaw Pact." Armenia, as otl, makes a little sense. Mongolia, in the overall context, does as well. But I just don't see the others, and the concept overall, as making much sense.

As Nuke said, the concept of "Spheres of Influence" makes little sense, overall. Yes, they have a little more influence in certain areas, but it's not a "sphere" or anything. That translates, much more so, into real power over certain areas.

There's really no need for any group like that. As seen often otl, the powers will act on their own. The West may have cared about Rwanda enough to try and get UN intervention, like otl, but as they did many times, they could have simply ignored the failure and went in anyways, but they did not. Why on earth would it be different here, especially in that context? There's no need at all for it. t would also mess with international law, and replace the UN. There's no doubt about that.

As I said, why would the Americans and Soviets do this? Neither public would go for the concept, nor would they in most of those nations. They are democracies, many of them not by much - there is no way that they would support random interventions.

Lordganon 22:12, September 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry you don't see it, Lordganon. I think the CSTO idea is pretty reasonable in comparison to what could have come out.


 * As for the UD, I am beginning to really dough it can be salvaged. It's not because of a Soviet-American alliance, but the fact that UN member states don't get what they want, so leave and do what they wanted to do anyway. Sounds too familiar. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:10, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

List of UD member nations
<p style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">I did give you the list last time for the members of the UD and future members. I was wondering f you can respond to it this time, so I thought I made the list, but the context is more appropriate.


 * 1) Canada

<p style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-left: 0.25in; ">Those above were the members when first founded. Here are the members that join the organization over time, with their date of entry and reasons:
 * 1) United States
 * 2) Mexico
 * 3) Belize
 * 4) Guatemala
 * 5) Honduras
 * 6) Nicaragua
 * 7) El Salvador
 * 8) Costa Rica
 * 9) Panama
 * 10) Bahamas
 * 11) Jamaica
 * 12) Dominican Republic
 * 13) Antigua & Barbuda
 * 14) St. Kitts & Nevis
 * 15) Dominica
 * 16) St. Lucia
 * 17) St. Vincent & the Grenadines
 * 18) Barbados
 * 19) Grenada
 * 20) Trinidad & Tobago
 * 21) Guyana
 * 22) Suriname
 * 23) Colombia
 * 24) Ecuador
 * 25) Peru
 * 26) Bolivia
 * 27) Paraguay
 * 28) Uruguay
 * 29) Brazil
 * 30) Chile
 * 31) Argentina
 * 32) Mali
 * 33) Senegal
 * 34) Cape Verde
 * 35) Sierra Leone
 * 36) Liberia
 * 37) Ghana
 * 38) Benin
 * 39) Ethiopia
 * 40) Sao Tome and Principe
 * 41) Republic of the Congo
 * 42) Tanzania
 * 43) Angola
 * 44) Zambia
 * 45) Malawi
 * 46) Mozambique
 * 47) Seychelles
 * 48) Comoros
 * 49) Mauritius
 * 50) Namibia
 * 51) Botswana
 * 52) South Africa
 * 53) Lesotho
 * 54) Australia
 * 55) New Zealand
 * 56) Papua New Guinea
 * 57) Vanuatu
 * 58) Nauru
 * 59) Tuvalu
 * 60) Kiribati
 * 61) Samoa
 * 62) Tonga
 * 63) Indonesia
 * 64) Philippines
 * 65) Vietnam
 * 66) Laos
 * 67) Cambodia
 * 68) South Korea
 * 69) Japan
 * 70) Maldives
 * 71) India
 * 72) Bangladesh
 * 73) Afghanistan
 * 74) South Yemen
 * 75) Israel
 * 76) Iraq
 * 77) Turkey
 * 78) Georgia
 * 79) Armenia
 * 80) Cyprus
 * 81) Mongolia
 * 82) Soviet Union
 * 83) Estonia
 * 84) Latvia
 * 85) Lithuania
 * 86) Norway
 * 87) Sweden
 * 88) Finland
 * 89) Denmark
 * 90) Ireland
 * 91) Iceland
 * 92) United Kingdom
 * 93) Romania
 * 94) Bulgaria
 * 95) Greece
 * 96) Albania
 * 97) Yugoslavia
 * 98) Croatia
 * 99) Slovenia
 * 100) Hungary
 * 101) Austria
 * 102) Czechoslovakia
 * 103) Poland
 * 104) Germany
 * 105) Netherlands
 * 106) Belgium
 * 107) Luxembourg
 * 108) Liechtenstein
 * 109) Italy
 * 110) San Marino
 * 111) Malta
 * 112) France
 * 113) Spain
 * 114) Portugal

<p style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-left: 0.25in; ">The list of nations below aren't part of the list above because I want to make sure they were canon enough:
 * 1) <span style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; color: rgb(58, 58, 58); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; ">Taiwan: 1995, February 3<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">rd (UD allowed it to join under certain conditions)
 * 1) Switzerland: 1995, May 1<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">st (Was interested in the UD, though it did not want to get involved much)
 * 1) Egypt: 1995, September 15<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)
 * 1) Vatican City: 1995, December 1<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">st  <span style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; color: rgb(58, 58, 58); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; ">(UD allowed it to join under certain conditions)
 * 1) Cuba: 1996, October 4<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (When the political reforms finally were in effect)
 * 1) Singapore: 1998, September 5<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Government made reforms when it began to get interested in the UD)
 * 1) Kenya: 1998, October 7<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)
 * 1) Rwanda: 1999, May 13<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Political situation stable and democratic enough)
 * 1) Burundi: 1999, May 13<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Political situation stable and democratic enough)
 * 1) Hong Kong: 1999, August 12<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Interested in the UD, though decision was approved by China)
 * 1) Macau: 1999, August 12<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Interested in the UD, though decision was approved by China)
 * 1) Uganda: 1999, September 21<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">st (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)
 * 1) Kuwait: 1999, November 14<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Government made reforms when it began to get interested in the UD)
 * 1) Qatar: 1999, December 1<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">st (Government made reforms when it began to get interested in the UD)
 * 1) UAE: 2000, January 16<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Government made reforms when it began to get interested in the UD)
 * 1) Thailand: 2000, July 1<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">st (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)
 * 1) Fiji Islands: 2000, July 24<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)
 * 1) Solomon Islands: 2000, August 4<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)
 * 1) Jordan: 2000, October 13<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)
 * 1) Somalia: 2009, September 11<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th ( Political situation was soon stable enough for democracy)
 * 1) Sudan: 2009, September 11<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Political situation was soon stable enough for democracy)
 * 1) Tunisia: 2011, March 19<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Zine El Abidine Ben Ali resigned as President, allowing a new, democratic government to form)
 * 1) Libya: 2011, September 8<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Rebel side ousted Qaddafi, allowing a new, democratic government in the country)

<p style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0.4em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0.25in; ">Haiti: 1996, April 13<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Popular protest forced changes and reforms in the government)

<p style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-left: 0.25in; ">Venezuela: 2008, July 13<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Hugo’s overthrow during a revolt by his people allowed a new liberal democracy)

<p style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-left: 0.25in; ">Zimbabwe: 2011, February 9<sup style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">th (Mugabe’s overthrow allowed a new liberal democracy)

<p style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-left: 0.25in; ">RandomWriterGuy 22:28, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

UD Update, Burma, Iran, and Others
ITS FRIDAY! FRDIAY!

Just kidding, I won't sing that song (at least it's Friday as we know it).

Anyways, lets do some talking!

For the UD update, I have the list of members, but do you think the members of good enough, or will it require changes? I have also thought of a different way the UD was founded, but you will have to wait for that.

Anyways, my last question for the UD update is: what will it take until this becomes canon?

One country we have not talked about yet is Burma, and I am thinking the UD could be formed that way. First of all, the government's brutal treatment to the protestors had outraged many liberal democracies. Although sanctions, freezing of assets, and breaking of all ties have been passed by liberal democracies, some countris, especially authoritan, have not done any action, and Burma still treats its protestors harshly (oh no!). The US, NATO, USSR, and CSTO have met in Washington D.C. to discuss the problem. However, what they do know is that the army has been the one who attacked the protestors. Then, after a recent protest, the US and USSR secretly planned to attack a military base in Burma to prevent any more innocent lives from being killed. On the night of Marh, 13th, 2004, US and USSR jets have bombed a base in Burma, near Rangoon, while a protest is happening. Because the soldiers were ambushed by the planes, the protestors were left unharmed for once. The next day, the US and USSR have announced they bombed the base to save the lives of innocent Burmese (yaaah!). Angered, the Burmese government believed it was an act of war and threatened American and Soviet Allies in Asia. Concerned, the US, USSR, and most liberal democracies wanted war with Burma, but most countries (authoritarian and dictatorships) opposed this. Because the failure to make any action against the UN, the liberal democracies decided to make the UD (you know how this goes). Then, they declared war against Burma. Within months, the Burmese government toppled, with its renmants only in the northern part of the country. While the people have praised this, the US, USSR, many liberal democracies who toom part in the war, and the UD were all critized for the war, especially Burma's Asian neighbors. And while the UD is being praised for helping to achieve UN goals, it has been critized for not always following the UN's lead. In 2008, the situation in Burma has been stable, and the war was officially over.

If you don't like the Burmese idea, but still want its government toppled, what do you think should happen?

Another country we have not talked about is Iran. Ever since the reformation of the USSR, Iran considers the country an "enemy of Iran and Islam". Since them, there has been high tensions between the West and Iran, especially the nuclear program. Duirng the 2009 protests against the elections, the US and USSR took advantage of this by encouraging sanctions, freezing of the country's assets, and the breaking of all of its ties. While this has been successful, the situation continues, and even grows violent as some Iranians declare war against the government, leading to a Second Iranian revolution. Eventually, the Iranian government topples, and a new liberal democracy is set up.

If you don't like this idea, but want to see an end of the Iranian Islamic regime, what is your idea?

Due to the success of the Soviet system of sovergnity in the country (I call this system Soverignism), many countries with racial and ethnical problems were desperate to adopt this to end its problems. I though I brought the list up (other than Yugoslavia or Ethiopia, because it's been already established!) and their reasons why. Here: This is all I could think of. Tell me if I miss anything.
 * 1) India (multiethnical country means problems in many parts of the country, like Kashmir, Nagaland, etc.)
 * 2) UK (Northern Ireland's controversial subject of staying with either Ireland or the UK)
 * 3) Canada (Quebec separation movement threatening Canadain unity)
 * 4) Indonesia (multiethnical country mean problems in the New Guinea part of the country and other places)
 * 5) Nigeria (its four main ethnic gorups cause major problems)]
 * 6) South Africa (Includes many states)
 * 7) China (Did this so Hong Kong and Macau could join, and went into effect to the provinces of Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and East Turkestan)

I wanted to contribute to the Soviet Union page by adding the agriculture section in the economy section. Since I was unable to access that, I thought I type it down here:

The USSR has one of the best farmland in the world, with few countries matching or being close to its potential. The black belt, that stretches from the Ukraine Cossackia, Russia (including Siberian and European parts), Mordovia, Mari El, Udmurtia, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Kalmykia, Kazakhstan, Tuva, and Buryatia, has been the center of cereal crops. The country is the top producer of wheat, barley, buckwheat, rye, nad millet, and a major producer of potatoes, maize, sorghum, oats, and rice.

The Soviet Union has abandoned its colelctive system of farms in order to increase food production, which was met with great success. As a result, wheat and meat production has increased greatly. The expansion fo most of the country's farm plots have greatly increased fruit and vegetable production. Since then, the USSR no longer had to import food as it used to.

I also have a few questions: Anyways, that's all I got to say, thank you!
 * 1) How will China's status in the world be effected? Will it be impossible to achieve the rank as the second largest economy? How will the military be effected?
 * 2) Will Egypt receive similar aid from the US in response to Soviet aid to Ethiopia? Will Egypt be off better than it is in OTL?
 * 3) What are the top ten richest nations? Where the Soviet Union in this list?
 * 4) Will the development of renewable energy sources be greater than before?
 * 5) With the end of the Cold War, will many countries drop their defense budgets?
 * 6) Is it true the break-up of Yugoslavia happened before the year 1991?
 * 7) What did the mat say to the floor? (It's a joke!)

RandomWriterGuy 22:39, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

That Burma idea makes even less sense than the Rwanda one. Seriously, these are democracies - they could not do anything like that. Because they have to vote or things and have the support of the people. And you'll note that most people otl do not care - why would that change?

You should just drop the idea, overall, in my opinion.

Iran toppling in any form is pretty ASB. Their military is strong and religious, with the Guard even more so. Any rebellions will get crushed.

You don't seem to know anything about those countries. It's called a federal system. All of those countries have it. While the USSR technically had one, they different areas has no real say overall. Not only that, but most of those are anti-Soviet, and if not that, lukewarm to them. Why on earth would they do anything like that? Most don't even have a real problem, either.

China would be more than likely about the same as otl. All of the factors leading to a rise overall there still exist here. Heck, with the Soviet Union still intact, they will likely even have a stronger military.

Countries would likely spend less on defense. More money will likely be spent on renewable energy, as the drop in pollution like otl around 1990 would not be as severe.

There's no reason for aid to Egypt to go up. Or for them to be better off, quite truthfully.

The ten richest nations - depending on the figure you use, mind - should be more or less the same. Move the Soviets up a couple notches from where Russia would be.

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Yugoslavia_(New_Union)

Lordganon 01:10, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Cuba
Here is my idea for Cuba that I have been meaning to write here for a while now. My idea is simple-ish.

With the USSR continuing to exist, Cuba would have no choice but to continue trading with them, or they will die as a nation. While Castro has negative feelings on Gorbachev, Cuba needs the USSR to survive. The Special Period would not happen, but the end for Cuba would come (more or less). As feared, the continued trading and contact with the USSR has lead to the ideals of glasnost and perestroika coming into the minds of Cuba. Than that day finally comes. On, protests break out in Havana, with the people demanding change for their nation.

While in OTL Castro had nothing to gain and all to loose, he order the police to fight the riots. But in TTL, it's the complete opposite. If Castro acts against his people, the world would look negatively on him. Or worse, Gorbachev may stop funding to Cuba and support the protesters. So in fear that his country would fall apart or go into another revolution, Castro can't do anything but watch the protests go on for days. Finally, after days of protests, Castro needs to make a decision. (Here comes more or my story telling than fact making) On the night of August 9, Castro has a long conversation with Gorbachev on the phone. In the span of hours, he curses Gorbachev out, but at the same time pleaded with him for answers. In his words to Castro, Gorbachev makes a supposed statement like, "Do you really think I am happy at the decisions I have made? Some night, I think about what my life could have been if I just kept my mouth shut and left the status quo in place. But in the end, I had to think of the people as a whole."

With the conversation over, Gorbachev goes to bed, but gets very little sleep. On the morning of August 10, 1994 (around 9:00 AM Havana Time), Castro announces to the nation that he will be resigning as President of Cuba. His brother Raul will take his place as President until presidential elections can take place. The world is shocked at the statement. In the end, Castro would leave with his life, and avoid another revolution. As promised, he leaves the Presidency to his brother, who will only serve as president until new elections take place in 1996. After he leaves, Castro would return to his home town. Despite the mixed opinion on him, Castro is still seen as a Father figure of Cuba. During the first Presidential elections, a prominently left-wing party takes power, with the CPC still retaining some seats in the National Assembly. Cuba would continue to have an alliance with the USSR, and would also reestablish relations with the US. Despite the new openness to the US, Cuba will still have a mixed emotion on the US, and continue to express their sovereignty from any US sphere.

In my opinion, I think the would be the likely party to win. It seems to fit what I have in mind. Any thoughts? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 20:32, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, except for the party.

Otl, Cuba, in theory, decriminalized other parties allowed them to exist - but not campaign, or run for office in any real form, in 1992. That may happen earlier here.

But, the thing is, at least otl - no real reason to see this change to much atl, either - the Socialist parties, especially that one, are not the largest or most organized. Far as I can tell, the three largest "opposition" parties - again, not allowed anything other than existence - are the Christian Democratic Party of Cuba, the Democratic Social-Revolutionary Party of Cuba, and the Democratic Solidarity Party. Obviously, only the one is socialist.

The biggest of those three is believed to be the Christian Democratic Party of Cuba, which is also definitely the most well-organized.

They'd probably be the ones to win the election. If you think about it, too, most post-USSR presidents otl - similar here, obviously - were independents, with the right and left split pretty closely over the remainder.

Heck, it's probably even more likely that the new president is an independent. But them being from a socialist party is, in my opinion, unlikely. --Lordganon 21:52, October 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * True that. *slaps head* Why didn't I think about an independent? I can't believe how stupid I was XD. But in either case, I am not too sure who would be the likely successor. Any suggestions? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 22:43, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Given the strength of the exile community in the USA, likely one of them. Lordganon 22:57, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a minute: Is the first part about Cuba is already stated in the main page before this?

RandomWriterGuy 04:29, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

I Finally Agreed To Admit It All
Fine, I'll admit it now. The UD is just too obsolete to be part of the New Union. I felt very sad and a little depressed when the UD failed to become canon to the New Union. I was trying to do my best to help you, and now I am totally ashamed. Please, I hope to get a kind response to this. Thank You.

RandomWriterGuy 04:25, October 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Like I mentioned before, there is nothing to be ashamed of. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. We all have had our share of bad ideas, including myself right here on this website. All I can say is take this into experience and use it to your advantages in the future. I know I am sounding like a High School Guidance Councilor, but it's the truth.


 * Not trying to kick a man when he's down, but a while back you mentioned why there are so many obsolete pages, and why they weren't deleted. Here is your answer. Do you really want to delete so much effort? You never know, this article could be recycled one of these days, maybe becoming its own timeline or something. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:12, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

Soviet Domestic and Foreign Policy
(This is now complete: Now you can comment on this.)

EVERYDAY I"M SH-SH-SH-SHUFFLING!

Sorry, I must have been party rocking too much, any ways, let's do some talking. The whole point I'm telling is now that with the USSR still surviving, I though I give ideas for the alternate domestic and foreign policies of the USSR and the US. I also put in other ideas as well, along with some questions.

Soviet Policy
With the survivial of the USSR, democratization in the country would continue unlike OTL, yet the new country's biggest domestic policy is to overturn all effects of the failed Communist system. This includes but not limited to: During the 'Roaring Nintes", most of the goals were achieved, yet the government still has a long way to go. Most people now have cars, electronics, refrigerators, etc. Unemployement rapidly declined, and new economic reforms cause enormous increases of GDP (so much that the country reached 8th in richest countries in the world). Most of the governmental corruption was rid of. The improved situation in crime, corruption, and the police have caused a major drop in crime. Yet the goverment still has to achieve various goals, including eliminating poverty, improving technology, developing resources in far reach areas of the country, and provide essentials to everyone.
 * Fixing and developing the economy
 * Fighting crime
 * End governmental corruption
 * Upgrading all out-of-date technology

As for the foreign policy, the survival of the Soviet Union meant that its superpower status is still preserved, nearly gone if the coup wasn't ruined. Its goals include but not limited to: During the "Roaring Nintes", the country grew economic and political ties with US, Europe, North American and certain East Asian nations. As part of the new bond, one act of kindess the USSR did was that it built numerous pipelines to Europe, China, India, the US, and other surrounding nations in order for them to meet energy demands, while aid was sent from those countries to rebuiold the USSSR. The aid sent to the USSR's allies has help rebuilt them, but democracy has been succesful in those countries, but few countries resisted democracy, so it had limited sucess. The country was mostly neutral at that time so that most of its goals in its domestic policy can be achieved, but during the War on Terror, the Soviets greatly supported the US and NATO in taking down Sudan and the Islamist terrorist groups. But after terrorist attacks in Dire Dawa and Moscow, the country declared war against Somalia with Ethiopia along with other allies.
 * Rebuild the countries who are allies of the Soviet Union
 * Improve and grow relations with the US, Western nations, Japan, and others
 * Encourage democracy within its allies
 * Reestablish the country's superpower status in a non-agressive way

Soviet Domestic Policy
Economy

After the reformation of the USSR, the government declared to help improve the economy. With outdated technology and high unemployement major obstacles. The government wanted to make sure that most of these obstacles were eliminated. The government passed major reforms in 1992-1993, including tax cuts, eliminating pork barrel spending, and reducing governmental spending in certain sectors. The reforms help created improved economic conditions and policies, allowing businesses and industries to expand and large rates. This allowed the economy to recovery and unemployement to drop, making the economy the third fastest growing in the world (after Qatar and China), allowing huge increases in GDP. During this times, the industries of automobiles, steel, textiles, electronics, and others began to gorw, attracting foreign businesses and investments to the bond market and the decline of long-term interest rates.

This allowed the government to gain excess money, which is used for improving and building infrastructure, governmental programs (thoguh spending for them is much lower), and paying off the debt, which began to drop over time.

Abortion

One issue that has the Supreme Soviet strangled is abortion. During Gorbachev's presidency, many people have opposed abortion more than ever. Not just the fact it is immoral and "terrible", but also the health risks that are left after it. The Anti-Abortion Movement in the USSR has gained major support around the USSR. At least 76% of the country want to end it immediatley. The Gorbachev, also wanting to end abortion, creates a new law that ends abortion. This issue was controversial between senators and representatives, but eventually, a large majority rejected the ban.

Corruption

Possibly a great challenge, Gorbachev wanted to see an end to governmental corruption once and for all. As one of the world's most corrupt countries, it cause a major problem in the government. The Supreme Soviet was greatly supportive of this, and passed various laws that limit the power of governmental leaders, set up punishments for corruption, and tighten restrictions on governmental leaders. This lead to a slow, but steady drop in corruption, as no more cases of such were decreasing. Any corrupt officials are forced out of politics forever.

Crime

Crime has been a problem that existed since the historical times of Russia. During the years of the original USSR, organized crime has plagued numerous cities, especially those in the European region. Gorbachev knows that governmental corruption and economic failure caused the growth of crime in many cities. In a daring move, Gorbachev allowed all prisoners free for less severe crimes and gave them money, essentials, and housing, as long as they no longer commit crimes. The improving economic and police situation also caused crime to decline in many areas. This caused a rapid decline of power of gangs and more safer environments.

Health

The health and health care systems in the USSR were among the world's worst. Poor hospitals, lack of distribution of medicine, and spreading disease caused poor health care in the USSR. Gorbachev was able to pass reforms that involve lowering medical costs and forced health care corporations to be more competitive in lower prices and higher customer satisfaction. The government also funded hospitals more so that their performance can be improved and funded the medical and pharmaceutical industries. New ones have been built and old ones have been repaired. By 2000, nearly every Soviet has perfect health coverage, with disease no longer rampant than it was.

Education

Although 99% of the Soviet population is literate, many schools are literally falling apart, and new ones have to be built to keep up the demand. Gorbachev was willing to strengthen grounding in science and mathematics for all students. Science foundations, school districts, and health institutes have been funded greatly by the government. Because the government wanted to close the gap between rich and poor student performance, spending towards math and science, provinding options for parents with students in poor schools, targeted poor, worn-out, and falling-apart schools for funding.

Environment and Energy Policies

The USSR joined the Kyoto Protocal in order to help lower emmisions, but also wanted China, India, and the US to get involved. Because climate change was an important issue to the Supreme Soviet, it has encouraged research within the Artic and Antartic regions to study to melting in ice sheets in order to raise awarness of the environment. Gorbachev visited many Western leaders to discuss the cuts on emissions, which was praised by the international community. The Supreme Soviet passed a plan to reduce greenhouse gas commisons. An emission credit system is also created to regulate the greenhose gases companies produce.

The second greatest issue about the environment is the Aral Sea. Cut off from its rivers, the Aral Sea has been drying up, and the republics of Kazakhstan and Karakalpakstan have introduced a plan to build pipelines and canals from the Caspian Sea to the Aral Sea. This gained major support, and the project began. During the project, the Central Asian Republics have passed laws that encourages foodstuff crops instead of cotton in certain areas and also enoruages cotton that do not use much water. By 2011, the project was complete, saving the Aral Sea just in time.

The USSR is not dependent on fossil fuels at all to its enorumous base, but due to environemntal and health concerns, renewable energy has been developed in many parts of the country. In Central Asia and the Caucasus, solar panels have been dotted across those parts, while windmills have been built in the windiest parts of the country. Dams have been built along most of the country's rivers, and nuclear power is beeing greatly developed. Renewable energy sources have made up 33% of the country's energy needs. The country has been investing in clean coal, renewable, and nuclear energy to end dependence on fossil fuels.

Social Services and Social Security

The Supreme Soviet has began its social security programs in order to help provide health care and social security to the elderly and people below the poverty line. The benefits is that the coverage is free and relies only on private insurance. People with high incomes should pay for this, but people below the poverty line don't have to. That way, the government doesn't have to be relied on this. Unlike the OTL American way of this, it is greatly improved, so that the people can make decisions about this and the programs don't rely on the government. The number of these programs is limited to avoid pork barrel spending.

Settlements and Natural Resources

Because the Soviet Union has rich resources not exploited, the Supreme Soviet was to build settlements in Siberia and Central Asia in order to develop these resources and encourage businesses there. However, the harsh environment forced planners to decide how the settlements were to be built. In the Central Asian republics, water purification plants, solar panels, and other enrionment-friendly projects are to be built to conserve both water and energy. New environmental-friendly insulation has also been ordered to be part in every house. In Siberia, proper insulation is to be used to save heat. From 1995-2005, many settlements were constucted and built were incredible speed, allowing people from the European part of the country to move to them.

The rich natural resources encouraged many businesses to expand in Siberia and Central Asia, which contributed to the gorwing economy. While the opputunity is limited due to harsh conditions, most of the activity is done in or near the settlements.

Military Funding and Reforms

As part of the military funding reforms, it will slightley increase, but failed social programs will be banned so that more can be made for defense spending. When the Soviets joined the War on Terror, it increased to $300 US Billion. In order to improve the military, new equipment is to be used by Soviet soldiers. By 2008, the military budget dcreased to $250 US Billion due to the sucess of the War in Somalia.

Immigration

The growing economy of the Soviet Union has eoncouraged immigration in the country. Most of the country's immigrants come from Eastern Europe, China, Mongolia, Afganistan, Ethiopia, Japan, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Pakistan, and India. But 15 million of these immigrants came here illegally, and the Soviet-Mongolian-Chinese-Afghan-Iran-Armenian-Georgian border is a major border that has not been guarded much, encouraging illegal immigration. In 1995, the government began to build a wall along the border to end illegal immigration. By 2000, the border fence has crossed the borders of China and Mongolia, but more is still to come. After 9/11, the immigration issue has grown even more. Immigration Watchers have used advance equipment to spot illegal immigrants. The government also installed lighting, vehicle barriers, and border checkpoints along the border. The government did allow amnesty in 2006 for all illegal immigrants, but only those who came before 2006.

Death Penalty

The death penalty is one of the biggest priorities of the USSR. Many believe that unusual and cruel punishments should be banned, and the death penalty should go. According to the Soviet Consitution, it is illegal for cruel and unusual punishments. The anti-death penalty movement has many followers, but others believed that it should be banned because of the USSR's participation in the Geneva Convention. Declining crime is also a supporting reason as well. But there are people who believe the death penalty shouldn't be banned to its benefits. In the Supreme Soviet, the ban of the death penalty won by 3 votes over to opposition.

Soviet Foreign Policy
CSTO and NATO

In order to establish cooperation with its bloc nations, the USSR created the CSTO in order to establish peace with others. Georgia, Armenia, and the USSR were the first members of this organization. Over time, more nations joined, including Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Cuba, Nicagura, India, South Yemen, and Nicagura. During the War in Somalia, the CSTO led the invasion of Somalia.

With the Cold War and hostilities between the two superpowers now at an end, one of the USSR's goals for the CSTO is to cooperate with NATO. During the War in Sudan, CSTO greatly supported the US and NATO in taking down the radical Sudanese government and raking down numerous terrorist leaders. During the War in Somalia, the NATO pledged all support to the Soviets in the war.

United States

With the Cold War over, so did the hostilities that divided the US and USSR. As a major goal for their foreign policy, the USSR and US want to build economic and political ties between the two to promote world peace and democracy. Th example that resulted in these ties is a bridge between the USSR and the US in the Bering Strait. Started in 2002, the pieces were esambled back at the USSR and the US. Then, every summer time, the pieces would be put together, but when the winter comes, construction stops, and continues every summer. It was eventually finished on 2009, as one of the greatest engineering achievements of man. The bridge not only carries people and transportation between the two countries, but fossil fuel pipelines go through it, allowing the U.S. to decrease dependency on the Middle East for oil. Also, American invesment and bsuinesses in the USSr allowed the eocnomy to recover. When it often comes to tough world issues, both countries would often work together. For example, both sides supported the wars they participated in the war on Terror (War in Sudan for the US and the War in Somalia for the USSR). They also participated in humantarian assitence and international peace processes.

China

With democratization and its role to defend and spread freedom and democracy a role for the USSR (unlike OTL Russia), it is now tough on many authoritan countries, like China, Libya, etc. Of all the countries the USSR is tough with, China is on their list. Because of its political and economic grievances, it caused tensions for both countries as for the United States. Because of this, China will have a stronger military unlike OTL. While the Chinese relations between the two superpowers were stabkle, they were often cautious. There were even times China did actually supported both countries, including the War on Terror, where China promised to help give support to the countries against Somalia and Sudan. But there were also times that the relations were strained, especially over Taiwan. The US and USSR supported Taiwanese independence, much to the dismay of China, which also penalized any foreign businesses making arms for Taiwan. The US and USSR also accused China of its poor human rights record. because the US is more willing to get tough on China after the 1989 Tianamen protests, it the public elected Clinton instead of Bush, who still supported the country. Both countries did establish tariffs on some Chinese products, which include steel, electronics, and automobiles. The USSR did build a pipeline to China as a part of their friendship, but much more will need to come to hopefully end tensions.

Koreas

Even after the end of the Cold War, Korea was still divided. Yet neither the US nor the USSR wanted war. The USSR did establish relations with South Korea. In order to hopefully ease tensions, US and USSR pressured South Korea to start peace talks with North Korea. Fortunatly, this has been successful. The US did establish some relations with North Korea, and a majority of American troops were moved out of South Korea in 2000. A Soviet-built pipeline to North Korea help the country end its nuclear program, while minor trading between the Two Koreas would be enacted. Although unification is possible, how its is may never be known.

India

With China becoming its own power, the USSR needed a new major ally in Asia. They eventually found India, which signed the Sino-Indian Treaty of Friendship, which created economic and political ties to both countries. The USSR was able to send economic aid to the country and built a pipeline from the country to India. The country than began a plan to use the money to stockpile food and rebuild the country, including the economy, the infrastructure, the road, telegraph, electric, and hospital network. it also establish governmental programs to the people. it also began to modernize the outdated army. Unfortunatly, regardless of how much aid was sent, India's GDP is only matchning to China due to the enormous population in India, causing major problems in housing, urban planning, and the amount of food it has. The Indian government also negotiated with separist groups within the country, and proposed a governmental system of sovergnity similar to the Soviets. This allowed most ethnic tensions to end in India. However, Kashmir can not be admitted into this due to the disputed claim by Pakistan. In order to get full control over Kasmir, Pakistan invaded it, causing the Kashmir War in 2003. Former separist groups in Kasmir sided with India, and the Soviet Union and Afghanistan also send military aid to India. Overwhelmed the country surrendered in 2004, giving India control of Kashmir. However, this cause anti-Afghan and anti-Soviet sentiment in Pakistan due to this, causing the country to side with the USA.

Ethiopia

By the time the USSR was reformed, Ethiopia was in a very bad state. With the survival of the USSR, the country managed to get the Eritrean separation movement and the Ethiopian government to renegotiate, including proposing a Soviet-style system so that Ethiopia can be divided into states depending on ethnicity but united under foreign affairsm, currency, etc. This allowed a major recovery for Ethiopia (and you know what happens next). It later joined the CSTO. During the terrorist attacks on Dire Dawa, the CSTO with ethiopia declared war against Somalia to elminate Islamist groups there.

Yugoslavia

Because the reforms and reformation of the USSR was too late to prevent the civil war and break up of Yugoslavia. Slovenia and Croatia gained independence, but the survival of the USSR helped put the war to a better end, allowing a Soviet-style system of sovergnity to be establish, but Bosnia, a part of Yugoslavia at that time, did not want to be in the country, and became its own nation. Later, British, American, and Soviet aid allowed democracy and the recovery to develop. it joined the CSTO later. During the War in Somalia, Yugoslavia was a part of the coaltion that invaded the country. The domestic successes of Yugoslavia led to Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia to express reunification with Yugoslavia.

War on Terror

The Soviets were a great supporter of the War in Sudan, but decided to not take part of it. It did, however, send a small number of troops and have sent aid to Sudan. It also recognized the indpendence of Kush and Darfur, despite concerns from Ethiopia. However, after the terrorists attack on the USSr and Ethiopia, the USSR and its allies declared War in Somalia, where it sbgean its pursuit of terrorist groups there.

South Yemen

With the USSR survivng, it would be a major player in the Yemen Civil War. Unlike OTl, South and North Yemen would be independent. Under the new South Yemen government, the Soviets sent aid to improve the country. This caused South Yemen to be one of the few non-oil producing areas of the Middle East to be wealthy. It is in fact one of the most developed due to the diversified economy that is not oil-related, which mostly depends on steel, automobiles, banking, tourism, and consumer goods. Its only economic concern is its need of drinking water and food supplies. Despite the improved state of South Yemen, it has been targeted like its Northern neighbor by Al-Qaeda. The USS Cole bombing alarmed the international community of the terrorist threat of the country. South Yemen has been a base for Soviet troops for the invasion of Somalia. During Arab Spring, it was not affected at all.

Iran

The USSR, like the Western World. has been neutrally hostile to Iran to its nuclear program, support of international terrorism, and its poor human rights record. During the 1990's, the USSR, along with several other Western nations, severed all ties with Iran, and establish economic sanctions, froze their assets, and forced and Iranians in the country out. The concern on Iran grew during the War on Terror, as many nations suspect Iran of producing WMD's and supporting terrorists. In fear a nuclear bomb might be stolen, all nukes have been moved to Siberia for protection.

RandomWriterGuy 18:47, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume it is safe to comment now. If I am wrong, please don't tell me in the rude manner you did earlier.


 * Soviet Policy: Sounds pretty accurate with what I had in mind. However, I dough the USSR would actually declare war, since the US didn't do so either to OTL Afghanistan.


 * Economy: Pretty good. My lucky number for the USSR's position in the GDP would probably be 4th or 5th (just saying).


 * Abortion: Again, I haven't read that abortion was a major problem in the USSR. From what I have just recently read, it seems their major concern was the amount of doctors who were unlicensed and unskilled practicing in the nation. While I haven't read Gorbachev's biography, I dough he is the type of person who would really think abortion is evil. In the long run, I think the USSR would remain pro-choice, allowing the people to make the decision on their own (rather than the government telling them what to do), and would move their efforts on educating the people about the pros and cons of abortion, and cracking down on unskilled doctors and health education on the procedure.


 * Corruption: Pretty accurate.


 * Crime: Good


 * Health: Good


 * Education: Good


 * Environment and Energy Policies: I love it ^_^


 * Social Services and Social Security: Good


 * Settlements and Natural Resources: Lovely


 * Military Funding and Reforms: Not too sure, but sounds okay.


 * Immigration: Ironic! They USSR builds walls to keep people in, now they are building them to keep people out. Irony at its best. I see nothing too wrong here.


 * Death Penalty: I don't have an opinion on the death penalty, but I believe this is pretty accurate for what the USSR would do (more or less). Or at the very least, keep the death penalty, but decrease the amount of people who are convicted and punished by this method.


 * CSTO and NATO: Good on the cooperation thing. Absolutely not on the expansion. Let me make this clear, not going to happen, ever. So please drop this idea. Especially if Nicaragua is going to join twice XD


 * United States: Pretty good. OMFG, BRIDGE!!!!!! That is really funny. I was originally considering the Bearing Bridge for another one of my timelines, but I never really considered it much for TTL. I am 100% for this idea. I would like to bring this idea into further discussion, especially if it should be a bridge or a tunnel.


 * China: Okay, but the US doesn't support Taiwanese independence, and neither would the USSR. They support their sovereignty, but I dough they would be completely willing to recognize independence as of yet.


 * Koreas: Good.


 * India: Fine, but two things. Your wording is wrong. India has been a major ally of the USSR throughout the Cold War, and China acted more like an enemy after the Sino-Soviet split. So, the wording needs to be fixed. As for Kashmir, hmmmm... very interesting idea. I know that the region is disputed between India and Pakistan, and that there were three wars fought over the region (the most recent was in 1999). I like the idea, but I am not completely sure. The USSR may send aid and support for India (but nothing more), but the idea of India finally winning the region is a little bit farfetched for me. Especially when the two now have nukes. While the likelihood of a fourth war is not out of the question, I am not too sure if it would end any way other than regaining the status quo. Overall, I put this idea on the border between a radical POD and an ASB, meaning it is a plausibility. But my expertise on Kashmir is limited. I would personally like to get a third and maybe fourth opinion on this.


 * Ethiopia: Good. Нет Эфиопия в ОДКБ!!!!!!!!!!


 * Yugoslavia: Okay. Югославия и ОДКБ... больше не.


 * War on Terror: About right. No declaration of war.


 * South Yemen: Good. However, I am thinking the USS Cole would actually be a Soviet ship rather than an American one. I am still working on this idea, so please stand by.


 * Iran: Pretty good. I love the idea of moving its nukes further north.


 * --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:23, October 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Soviet Policy: Agree with Nuke. And there is no way in hell they'd declare war. Heck, there's not even a government to declare war on, there.


 * Economy: No way they'd be the third fastest growing. They would even today still be trying to fix things. That takes a ton of money and debt. Would not even crack the top ten, probably.


 * Abortion: Not one iota of that makes sense. The Soviet government was one of the most liberal on the matter, and the Russian government today holds the same policy. The people and the church both are at worst lukewarm over the matter. No way it's changing. Even if that is Gorby's opinion - which I don't believe is true for a second - it's not happening. You need to remember that in the developed world, outside of the USA, a large majority are in favor of this.


 * Corruption: It exists everywhere. Sure, it will decline, but it's not going away. Ever.


 * Crime: That's much too rosy. The Russian Mafia and the other gangs have been active for decades, largely with black markets. And the opening they used otl to expand still exists atl. They will not decline at all, probably, and definitely not rapidly.


 * Health: Perfect? No where on earth has "Perfect." And the Medical system in the USSR, until the 1990s issues came up, was better than in the USA. Even today it's comparable.


 * Education: More or less the same as Health.


 * Environment: Much like otl, there would be a large drop in emissions in the early 1990s. To meet their treaty goals, they shouldn't have to do anything. Nor is a "credit" system likely. There is a reason why those are being opposed so badly.


 * Aral Sea: No way will they do pipelines. Nor is there any cotton that will do any good. The Foodstuff laws will be more than enough to start a slow recovery.


 * Energy: That's too much. Russia today is one of the largest exporters of oil and gas in the world, and the Soviet Union would be even more so. Countries like that don't go that far into renewable energy. Dams are unlikely on a scale like that at all - they flood all over. And after Chernobyl, nuclear energy just isn't happening. While some investment is going to happen, it's not going to be that much. You're talking about coming close to doubling the percentage. Just not reasonable.


 * Social Security: That's not an improvement. The net result of that would be bankruptcy. Low-income will always outnumber high-income. Simple math. The Soviet Union already had a very good system set up, with the only improvement being that it needed an increase each year for inflation, which was not included otl.


 * Settlements and Resources: There's only a few places that this would have any real effect, virtually the same as in otl. A large portion is already in place, and the rest is common sense.


 * Military Spending: The USSR was going broke because of the spending. There is a good reason why it fell otl. Even cutting back on social programs, it will still go down.


 * Immigration: Most of those are booming countries, or ones well-off in their own right. The remainder, it's not happening otl, so it's not going to be a large scale here. Even then, the mass exodus from otl is still going to happen, just not on quite the same scale (like 4/5ths as many go). This is just too far. 15 million? That's crazy.


 * Death Penalty: I doubt it would even come to a vote. But Nuke is right in that it will just get used less.


 * CSTO/NATO: Just No. You need to drop the whole idea. The only part that is sensible is the cooperation, which happens between Russia and NATO to some degree otl anyway.


 * USA: The bridge is a good idea, but impractical in general. And I highly doubt any Americans are going to want a land connection to the "Red Menace." Even having reformed, doubtful at best.


 * China: No way in hell Taiwan would be recognized. China would stop exporting, and call in debts. Screws them both.


 * Koreas: There are reasons why US troops remain there today, despite the people constantly demanding their removal. Even with peace talks between the Koreas, most would stay.


 * India: That Kashmir stuff is ASB. Big time. The only result of another war would be nuclear warfare. India's GNP would still be lower than China, no matter the aid sent. Their current government is fine - the USSR one is not needed. The situation there just happens to be the result when you have hundreds of sub-languages mixed together.


 * Ethiopia: Why on earth would Eritrea accept that? The UN vote for independence, a free and fair internationally supervised vote, may I add, had 99.79% of the people voting for independence. With those numbers, they would never accept another takeover, even with autonomy promised.


 * Yugoslavia: There is no reason for them to want reunification. If it had been up to those three peoples, they would not even have been part of that country in the first place.


 * War on Terror: What Nuke said.


 * Yemen: The two have had a stated goal of reunification since the 1970s. Something which they actually did do in 1990. They are a single nation.


 * Iran: The Nukes are already in Kazakhstan and Ukraine at their most Southern. There is absolutely no need to move them into Siberia.

Lordganon 01:03, October 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Lordganon, have you read the timeline? The continuation of Ethiopia (including Eritrea) has been canon for a long time now. Their referendum was in 1993 (well beyond the POD). The Yemeni civil war of 1994 caused South Yemen to declare independence from the North (because the north pretty much ran the united nation), and it would gain support from the USSR. As for Yugoslavia, I missed the part about Croatia and the others. For the record, I dough those three would want that. I also have to disagree with you on the Bering Bridge, I think there would be some support from Congress and the American people (granted, maybe not all). If Denmark and Sweden can have a bridge, and the Brits and French have a tunnel, why not the Americans and Soviets? Other than those, I have to agree with the others. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 04:41, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

For starters, it's LG. Told you that many times now, lol.

Yeah, I've read it. I do admit to having missed the Yemen thing. It is remotely possible for such an outcome, but far more likely that Soviet influence would have the exact opposite effect.

The vote may have been after, but note the percentage. The people would never agree to rejoining Ethiopia. The people there are a different culture, and have a different religion, and a different language. It has wanted to be independent since WWII, when 75% wanted it and the world gave them to Ethiopia, and fought forty years for it. The Ethiopians - Eritrea will not care which government - did unspeakable things to them. And only a couple years after the PoD, 99.8% of them voted for independence in an internationally supervised and recognized referendum. There is no way on earth that those numbers could possibly change enough so that it is plausible. To go to numbers, 1,055,260 voted for it, 1,822 voted against it, and 328 were invalid, out of a total of 1,057,410. 0.17% wanted to stay in Ethiopia. There is no way on earth it is possible for them to join Ethiopia in any form.

Denmark and Sweden, by the time of the bridge, had not fought in around 190 years, and had been friendly for over a century. Same goes for the Chunnel, though it is a few years less of friendly. And even then, the Chunnel was hard fought by some because of its access and lingering dislike. Not only that, but there's a ton of technical issues related to such as project, being so far north.

Now, I'm sure a bridge or tunnel would be more likely here. But to be completed, or even under construction? No way. There would be far, far, too many opposed to giving the "Reds" access to them. A proposal in the works, that may be possible. But one even being built, let alone done, is just not plausible.

Lordganon 06:39, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, you never told me to call you LG. But if you did, than I am sorry. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:49, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

I will have to agree with Nuke LG. I strongly suggest your read most of the articles in this article to get the full picture.

I am rethinking about my ideas I did post, and I made some changes.

Abortion: I really am going to admit it: banning it will not be plausible. Instead, the Supreme Soviet will probably have to put numerour restrictions on it. These are: Crime: While the reforms and laws made to reduce crime were succesfull, many Soviet-based crime organizations were forced to operate in Siberia to be hidden from the public. There, they have become bandits: they robbed towns, travelers, etc. Because the police authority is now very high there, Siberia was chosen by many gangs. While their power is declining as well as the rate, much more will be done to make environments safer.
 * 1) If the doctor fails to use the proper technique for abortion, he will be jailed for a lifetime
 * 2) Only highly professional doctors and/or surgeons can preform this procedure.
 * 3) Women can only get an abortion if they are infected by a strong disease, like cancer, AIDS, etc.

Social Security and Military Spenidng: I am starting to agree with LG on this, I think that the USSR will have to limit most of this due to bankruptcy (even after the reformation of the USSR). But later in 2000's, they were officially better off than before in money, but spending has been limited by the government, even in Social Secuirty.

Death Penalty: I am starting to think that will fail to be banned, but it will be just be discouraged by the Supreme Soviet from using it.

Aral Sea: Well we do know that this sea is in danger of extintion since its water source has been cut off. I think this will become a major issue for the Supreme Soviet, and there are ideas in order to save the Aral Sea (I am sorry that these are from Wikipedia, please forgive me):


 * Improving the quality of irrigation canals;


 * Installing desalination plants;


 * Charging farmers to use the water from the rivers;


 * Using alternative cotton species that require less water;


 * Using fewer chemicals on the cotton;


 * Moving farming away from cotton;


 * Installing dams to fill the Aral Sea;


 * Redirecting water from the Volga, Ob and Irtysh rivers. This would restore the Aral Sea to its former size in 20–30 years at a cost of US$30–50 billion;

​I really want to know which idea(s) is/are the best.
 * Pumping sea water into the Aral Sea from the Caspian Sea via a pipeline, and diluting with freshwater from local catchment areas.

Renewable Energy: I think about nuclear energy expansion, Ukraine and some European Soviet Republics will, have to ban any more nuclear plants buing built. New ones will have to be built in Siberia or other near-isolated areas, but still connected to supplies. For dams, I think the number of dammed rivers will be limited.

Settlements: In Siberia, only the southern part of the region will only be settled.

Immigration: When I meant this, I only meant in a matter of OTL Immigration to Russia. I do believe that the project will only be 2/5 complete in 2000.

CSTO Expansion: I am starting to think this is impossible.

India: About the Kasmir thing, I think the threat to use nuclear bombs in the war by both countries will shock the entire world. I think the USSR will have to threaten to use its nuclear bombs against Pakistan as well if it has to defend India from them. Because Pakistan does not have enough warheads, they surrendered.

Yugoslavia: I meant not all at the same time, just maybe one or two of them.

Iran: The reason I thought about the nukes is because of the nukes of Uzbekistan may be targeted by terrorists. I am starting to reconsiderate where they should be relocated. I think all nukes should not only be in Eastern Siberia, but also in non-Muslim republics (in only certaina areas).

I also want to talk to you about Osama Bin Laden. Because there was no evidence on how Bin Laden can get to Somalia, it really did mess things up. I am starting to reconsider that Bin Laden should be killed while trying to escape Sudan.

For the Bering Strait Bridge/Tunnel, I think that the tunnel is impossible because the water to too cold for the tunnel to be built there. The bridge is better.

For the Taiwan thing, maybe you are right, but economic and political grievances from the US and USSR will probably be the cause for their tensions.

For the reforms in domestic policy, the progress of improvement is not in an instant (for the sectors in economy, infrastructure, health, all domestic policies), it will take time, even lasting into the 2010's.

RandomWriterGuy 23:45, October 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad you came to your senses on the CSTO. I also do believe there would be some support in Croatia and Bosnia to rejoin Yugoslavia. But when I mean there is support, I am referring to a large minority (less than 10% the population or something), but that it does exist to a minor extent. I have also self-canonized the revival of the Aral Sea for TTL (but not really sure how to do it). My major guess was that they would just build the canal, bringing water from the Arctic Ocean (via the Volga River) to replenish the sea. This is what was originally intended, but never done. But my main interest was that with Karakalpakstan gaining full representation in the Supreme Soviet, they would pressure to safe the sea, as it is (or was) their main source of income. Whether this would be pressuring to build canals or pipelines, or even pressuring to limit the amount of water taken out. In other words, the Aral Sea will be "saved" in TTL, and is nowhere near as dried up as OTL (but still decades away from its old size). Like I mentioned before, the Kashmir idea is an interesting one, but I did see its flaws. While I will agree the world (not just the USSR) would be devastated if either India or Pakistan use their nukes on each other, I am not too sure the USSR would be willing to use its own nukes to defend India, or retaliate. The world would just be lucky that it would only end up a second Hiroshima, rather than becoming a 1983: Doomsday scenario.


 * For LG (I am sorry, but I still don't recall you ever mentioning to me that you wanted me to call you LG). I do agree that you should take a closer look, but not forcefully. Now that I think about it, their may actually be several ASB-type stuff in TTL. But in the long run.
 * Yes, North and South Yemen have had unification on their minds since the 1970s (I believe). But when it did happen, it wasn't anything like; say Germany. The united Yemen was no federation, and was more like the North annexing the South. Granted, the former Southern President became Vice President, and the YDD continued to circulate for several years after the unification, it was the North which gained the most. (This is the only other time in the history of the world where the Southerners are feeling neglected by Northern power, ROTFL!!!) Even after both nations agreed to unify, the differences between the two came out full circle, finally breaking out into civil war. While I do agree that maybe I could reword what happens next, in the end, South Yemen did have a non-Soviet ally in OTL. Saudi Arabia actually expressed sympathy for the South, but didn't go any further than that. This "sympathy" could also have come from the Saudi's rivalry with (North) Yemen. While Yeltsin was too lazy to do anything outside Russia, I am sure Gorbachev would have (at the least) showed support for one of the Arab allies of the USSR. Maybe not directly recognizing their independence right away, as I have made canon already; but maybe enough support to raise moral in the South, and enough courage for Saudi Arabia to step up more. The Soviets may have ended up giving aid to the South, as a means to lead to a pro-Southern compromise to end the war (but initially keeping a united Yemen), but it ended up much differently. Eventually leading to the USSR recognizing their independence once again. In the end, the South will rise again (the only other time you can say that outside America). Even today, the South Yemeni movement to regain independence is still active. In fact, I continue to read many believing the South will actually gain independence due to the Arab Spring. But I still support this idea.
 * The Ethiopia idea was not mine, but another user's suggestion. I knew very little about Ethiopia prior to this, but now I think I know enough to say that the continuation of a unified Ethiopia-Eritrea does still have some likelihood. While it does have a more mixed ethnic population, who's to say that Ethiopia isn't the same? The two major ethnic groups of Eritrea are the Tigray and the Afar, which are currently represented in Ethiopia as their own ethnic regions. I know the independence referendum was virtually 100% in favor of independence, but as history has shown us time and time again, a lot can happen in a short period of time. Take the Ukraine for instance. In March 1991, the Ukraine supported the continuation of a Soviet federation, with 70% of the Ukrainians supporting it. This is after decades of oppression by the Russians and Soviet government, yet the people still showed hope. And just like that, the Coup happens, and in December the same year, the same majority (even the pro-Russian Crimea) voted for independence. My point is, a lot can happen in a short period of time, and this was only a few months. Granted, several things on the Ethiopia page need to be rewritten and rethought, but I continue to support that Eritrea could be moved by a different outcome in Ethiopia to (at the very least) listen and put their say in the table. What would be better for the people of Eritrea, gain independence and years of hardship and economic troubles, or remain in a reformed Ethiopia and (at the very least), help to establish a new generation.


 * In the end, these two I am going to defend to the very end. I can't imagine this timeline without South Yemen and Ethiopia, and I continue to thing and expand on these ideas. Just saying. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:29, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Nuke, I've told everyone that at one point or another, lol.

Comments to RWG.....

There's no way that they would put any more restriction on abortion than there was already. The first one is not possible - accidents happen. The Second one is always what happens, everywhere, so long as it is legal. And the third one is ridiculous. Throughout the Developed countries, outside of a couple of them - Read: almost exclusively the USA - abortion rights are guaranteed and barely restricted. The Soviet Union, and even Russia today, had/has what amounts to none (I realize this is changing slightly in Russia, but that's a question of falling birthrates, which doesn't apply here). It's ASB to even think of it changing to either extent you've now proposed.

The criminals going to Siberia is just as bad. If they can survive the Hardliners, they can survive a reformed USSR just as easily.

The death penalty would simply actually be followed like their laws actually said. It's just that it was entirely ignored though most of Soviet History. No longer the case.

Options 2,4, and 5 do little or nothing to help the Aral Sea. the problem would still exist, just slowed a tiny bit. Number 3 is slightly better, but no real effect, either, and kills the economy. Number 1 helps a bit, but it's not enough either. 6 is, along with 2, is what the Kazakhs are doing some good with - call it subsides. Dams from 7 won't do much good, overall. 8 was under debate near the end otl, but causes so much damage and risks overall it simply won't be done - when that was found out by the West in the 1990s, it literally shocked most people in the field. 9 spreads the problem. Best solution is a combination of 1,2,4,5 and 6. Mostly 6.

Nuclear Plants were more or less halted in the former USSR until 2000 or so, and that'll probably continue here. There's no reason to build more, with the ones in non-Russian areas still in use.

Those immigration figures still remain insane.

The Kashmir concept is ASB. Just drop it.

Soviet nukes were in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and Kazakhstan. Not Uzbekistan. All loyal.

He can get to Somalia. The region is filled with tiny boaters, most of whom are pirates or nearly so. He can catch a ride, easily, without the naval vessels finding anything.

Bridge is still not very feasible.

Several of those comments apply somewhat, to you too, Nuke, since you commented on a few of those too.

Agreed on the Yugoslavia. That's roughly double the amount of Serbs, so probably reasonable.

It's have to be less water usage. There's just too much environmental issues from the other method.

Any threats to use nukes is just crazy. Once one is made, they mushroom.

I already stated that I figure it'd be more likely Soviet influence would even it out in Yemen, but that this way is reasonable, too.

And Ethiopia/Eritrea....

It's not just the last poll. They fought 40 years for it, and even back at the start 75% of them wanted independence. There's no reason at all for that to change. You're talking about something ingrained in the culture.

Ethiopian control over the region stems from their efforts to control the region, against the wishes of the locals, after the Italians were kicked out of the region in WWII. Until the UN gave it to them, it hadn't been controlled by them at all in more than a thousand years.

The reasoning given by Vegas - yes, I know who wrote it, and he's very much an Ethiopiaphile with bias - makes no sense. See, there really isn't any pro-federation people. Heck, the rebels controlled virtually all of Eritrea by that point, and operated an independent state in all but name. Total control, in fact, from several months before the coup attempt.

The Ukraine example is different entirely. The Ukrainians were only oppressed by Stalin. After that, they were right up there with the Russians, being favored. They've every interest to hang around. The vote for independence was a direct response to the coup otl, and a logical result, as they did not want to be oppressed - which we can both admit would have been the result if it had succeeded. It also did not occur in an area controlled by rebels that had been fighting for their own state for 40 years, and wanted independence longer than that. This has been a generational struggle for them in Eritrea - not the case in the Ukraine, at all. Heck, if a poll was to happen over rejoining Russia in the Ukraine today, they'd be part of Russia tomorrow. They regret 1991 - Eritrea, on the other hand, would never have more than a couple percent voting for it.

Really, the first 1991 vote was for independence light. That is more or less what you've said the new USSR is on several occasions. From there, it's only a tiny stretch, under stress, to the second vote. Not the case, at all, in Eritrea.

Actually, Eritrea is better off overall than Ethiopia - or at least they would be, without the war between the two in the late 1990s. Heck, they have from 45-100 dollars, depending on the source, higher GDP per capita than Ethiopia even today. Why would they want to get dragged down?

Really, the Ethiopia/Eritrea thing does nothing overall to your timeline other than hurt it.

As an alternative.....

The main rebel group in Eritrea, the Eritrean People's Liberation Front, was nominally Marxist at the time. But, they were not aligned with the Soviets - or anyone for that matter - and the Soviets supported the Ethiopians, causing a massive rift between then rebels and the Soviet government - they more or less hated the Soviets. Never really has healed, even today. But, it's a rift that could easily have been fixed with a little support.

While a Eritrea joining Ethiopia is, let's be honest, more or less impossible, a nicer split is certainly possible. Soviet arms and money, as the Ethiopia article says right now, would ensure it was nicer, especially if they cut off the Ethiopians somewhat to make peace happen. Basically, no war, and the Soviets on good terms with Eritrea, even cooperating. Give Ethiopia a bone, having them be given access without fees or something to the ports. Of course, Ethiopia still goes to a Federation like already set up, just one that makes sense. As it stands now, Eritrea joining is like jamming the Baltic States back into Russia inside the USSR - it's just not possible.

As for the other nationalities, simply put, they are minor and small in population, and unlike Eritrea, not in control of their region. They're also mostly nomadic, and control over them has little effect. There's really no comparison, here.

The "GOASIE" operations can easily be changed to Eritrea. Easy, and simple, and makes more sense at the same time. Heck, the only place where any effort would be involved is slight modification to the main page, and an overhaul to the Ethiopia article, which as you admit needs it anyways. The Somalia operations continue unabated, as nothing to do with Eritrea is part of it. If that sounds like too much effort, I'd even do it for you. (Yeah, its bugging me that much)

That makes far more sense, doesn't hurt a single thing, and gains another ally, of sorts, for the USSR. No war in the late 1990s, and both countries boom. Overall, except for the map, almost nothing changes. But the timeline loses probably the most outlandish part. Sounds good to me.

Lordganon 05:02, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

LG, however unllikely you belive Eritrea rejoining Ethiopia is, the alternative you outlined above if far more unlikely. The EPLF would never have supported the Soviets, They might have started as Marxists but were most definitely not by the 90's.

Instead of Eritrea rejoining Ethiopia, the Ethopian and Soviet governments decide to give aid to the much more moderate and reasonable ELF (Who were considering signing a peace deal in the 80's). The ELF then regains control of the independence movement in Eritrea and signs a treaty with the Ethiopians agreeing to allow them to use the port's ectra. Again thier is no war and both countries are better off but Eritrea doesn't fall under the control of an opresive regime that tortures its citizens and has one of the worst human rights records in the world. Vegas adict 08:33, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Not true - nor did I say they were still Marxists. They were Socialists at that point - as they are today - and a simple Soviet switching of aid, at least in part, from Ethiopia to them, which was the only sticking point between the two, would solve matters for the most part. And who said anything about supporting? There is one hell of a difference, which you have missed, between that and a couple of joint exercises, which powers who are not entirely friends will still do together.

The ELF had made itself entirely irrelevant by 1991. The fact remains that the EPLF was in complete control of Eritrea. Not the ELF. There's no way that they could come to "control" anything - that's just as bad as the two thousand people in favor of a federation coming to power - and they have similar bases of support.

And that port stuff is part of what I already said.

Lordganon 08:45, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopia
Wow LG! I am really impressed. For the record, I actually came across the failure of Ethiopia for TTL last night. Most of the key dates for Ethiopia took place in June and/or July of 1991 (well before the POD of this timeline). Even if Merera Gudina would have gained support from Gorbachev on August 21, 1991, I don't think this could work too well. A second invasion of Addis Ababa seems to be more troublesome than good for Ethiopia. Vegas, you even said yourself that Merera Gudina never had a movement in the 90s, but this was completely an idea you came up with.

Either way, I went to bed feeling terrible about what had to be done. But you surprised me, LG. Not only were you cool about it, you gave me the best idea I could have asked for to somewhat save Ethiopia. I can kinda see it all right now. With Ethiopia and Eritrea under provisional governments by the signing of the NUT, there was very little Gorbachev or the USSR could do but reestablish peaceful relations with Ethiopia, and show they care for Ethiopia's and Eritrea's futures. Again, with both the EPRDF and the EPLF all prominently socialist (by far no different in ideology than what the USSR was turning into), and the EPRDF already agreeing to allow a referendum to be held for Eritrea, I now feel confident that the three would make a nice triangle. With Soviet aid now coming to both Addis Ababa and Asmara, both groups would move towards the USSR in many ways.

With Soviet support (and manipulation), the EPRDF would transform from what it is in OTL to a more Soviet-synced country, turning Ethiopia into another union of sovereign states. Eritrea would vote for independence as in OTL, but maybe would have a larger support to remain in Ethiopia than in otl (like only 80-95% supported independence in ttl). Like in the case of the Black Sea fleet in OTL, the USSR would persuade Eritrea to lease a port city to Ethiopia to allow them to retain a minor naval fleet, or would help to establish a FTA between the two nations, allowing for a smoother transition from one nation to two. GOASIE could actually become "GOASIEE" (Gulf of Aden Soviet, Indian, Ethiopian, and Eritrean), but I am not actually suggesting to change the name. With better relations, no border wars in the late 90s, and both nations would see an economic boom from what they would have had in OTL. I think this may actually be a better idea. Like LG said, nothing really needs to be changed (aside from maps and the main article itself). But I do feel happier with this idea. I could even see the Ethiopian-Eritrean relations much more friendlier in TTL because of this. Maybe there would actually exist a political movement within Eritrea to rejoin Ethiopia, rather than comparing Eritrea to the Baltic States for instance. I am really sorry, Vegas, but I now believe Ethiopia needs to change. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:30, October 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * If you so wish Nuke, all I ask is that you still allow me to work on Ethiopia in this time line. I would say though that of all the Ethiopian groups the EPRDF was dead by '91, the two other groups that could realisticly win the civil war were the hardline marxist Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Party or the pro Ormo autonomy party the OLF. Else the TPLF wins and Ethiopia continues as it is in OTL although Eritrea could quite easily be an ally of the USSR Vegas adict 19:17, October 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we have the final veridct about Ethiopia. I guess we should bring it to a close.


 * About the Kashmir thing, this happened because when the reformation of India was about to begin, Pakistan did not want Kashmir to join this, thus this was the cause of th conflict. If the 1983:Doomsday Scenario was going to happen during the war, it be resticted to just this area. Besides, I'll drop the idea if Nuke does.


 * For the economy, look at the reforms China make during the 1980's to improve the economy. The USSR should make these kinds of reforms, and the economic outcome would be same of similar to China. Even Nuke agreed to my ideas on the Soviet Domestic and Foreign policies. RandomWriterGuy 03:10, October 9, 2011 (UTC)



Working for eight hours, and I thought of an interesting idea for Ethiopia. I came across an article a while back (when I was working on a new republican map for Ethiopia for the timeline). You can read the article here, and I personally think it is ones opinion rather than fact, but it does make you think. According to the article, the Afar people of southern/eastern Eritrea felt left out that they were now cut off from the Afar majority in neighboring Ethiopia, and many apparently want a referendum to determine this. But aside from this article, it gave me an interesting idea on a potential compromise that could have come out of a Soviet-backed Ethiopia/Eritrea relationship. In short, Eritrea gives Ethiopia some coastline, only a little bit. More or less, the port city of is the key area of interest. Since the port is "practically" near the Eritrean border with Djibouti, it wouldn't be much of a loss. After doing some more research on the matter, I came up with two potential borders for this compromise. I made a map to show them. The border in blue is my first choice, and seems pretty reasonable. It is the border of the of Eritrea, and is the furthest eastern district of Eritrea. It includes the port of Assab and a little bit more. The next idea (in red) looks much more radical. In short, it is the border of the former of Eritrea. Prior to 1996, Eritrea was divided into provinces (which is something I just learned today), and it seems logical to believe that any compromise would have come around before the provinces would have been abolished. To me, this makes some sense for its radical nature. More or less, this border would correspond nicely with the Afar population of Eritrea, allowing the Afar to remain united in TTL. This province (as with the area today OTL) is highly unpopulated (in comparison with the remainder of Eritrea). I am not kidding, but the area's population OTL is more or less the same as TTL's (which is 10 times smaller). Aside from the coastline, the entire region is nothing but desert. In all, I think this might be an idea that Eritrea could consider, and could get something in return from Ethiopia. I personally can't think of what Eritrea would want in exchange for loosing any of its territory, but I may suggest something like Ethiopia recognizing Eritrea's definition of the border between them (the same dispute that lead to war in OTL).

I like the idea, it could be possible. But at the same time, it sounds very weird. Again, this is just a proposal, and I wanted to see what you all thought before it went any further. Please tell me what you think. If it can be done, I would love to do it. If it's not possible, then I will drop the idea. I still have several ideas for a landlocked Ethiopia and how it can still have a navy (more or less). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 03:42, October 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh. Thanks Nuke, lol.


 * I'd say closer to 95% than not, and probably a little higher than that. Simply put, while 99.8% could fall a ways, dropping into the 80's is really not logical.


 * Allowing them the use of a port makes some sense, though I kinda doubt that they'd do the fleet. Same goes for the FTA. Really, no fleet would allow concentration on things inland. But, I suppose a couple of patrol boats at whichever port they have access at would be plausible. As for the FTA, the economies had more or less been separate for many years already. Doubt the EPLF would go along with that, anyways - something like "just more Ethiopian attempts at domination."


 * Even if Ethiopia gets a couple patrol boats, there's really no reason to participate in the fleet operations. We're talking coastal patrol boats, here.


 * A small movement to join with Ethiopia may well exist, but that'd have almost no support anywhere. Note, too, that the Baltic States do actually have such movements in the Russian population.


 * Good lord, is that blog you quote biased. It's definitely their opinion - the same one that caused all of everything to take 40 years to end in the first place. Heck, most of it is simply not true. A quick check of wikipedia shows that most of their claims are out to lunch. Most of it is an anti-Egypt/anti-Muslim rant. Blames almost everything wrong in Ethiopia on Eritrea and Egypt, too. It's just like the extreme nationalists you find in the States on occasion - you probably know the type I mean, Nuke.


 * Really, the people in that area voted for independence in virtually the same numbers as the rest of Eritrea. Heck, the divide that quote talks about doesn't really exist, either, at least not to that extent. There's even different names for the Afar in the two countries, with a really long standing historical basis.


 * I have to doubt about the borders - there's really no way I can see Ethiopia doing that. What'd be possible, mind would be that both governments actually recognize the rulings of the Commission. Would benefit them both.


 * Have that port be the one they're allowed to use. It does make the most sense. But giving them the region is just an extreme Ethiopian nationalist fantasy. --Lordganon 09:23, October 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * To Vegas: Of course you can continue to work on the article. Ethiopia is your article, and I would never wish to take that from you.


 * To RWG: I never endorsed the idea, I only stated that it was an interesting idea (in theory).


 * To LG: Glad you are glad. I knew that article was full of shit, but I guess I am a sucker for alternate maps like the one on the article. I'm a little disappointed that this idea didn't fly. I am especially disappointed that they lesser idea didn't seem likely. I still like the idea. Is there any hope for this idea? Maybe a smaller piece of coastline? But I know, just grasping straws. I should stop looking into Ethiopia having a coastline, and instead figuring out how to make relations between them and Eritrea much better than OTL. I remember reading on Wikipedia that upon independence, there was debate on what would become of the Ethiopian Navy, and it was generally believed that Ethiopia would retain its navy (if not a smaller entity than what it once was), being secured by foreign ports (like Assab). But like you said, this "navy" would more or less exist as a port authority or something (I can't say those words without thinking about NYC XD). I have read that Assab continued to be an Ethiopian port, or that Eritrea allowed Ethiopian use of it. I guess that makes the most sense, but still a big change to look at. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 23:26, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

It's really just not that feasible, Nuke.

Yeah, I've read about that debate too. The idea that they would retain their entire Navy in a foreign port was really pretty silly, and was foolish at the time. Here.... well, as I said a couple smaller vessels at whatever port they have access at would work. But past that, there's no real use or need, you know? I figure that the idea of splitting the navy between them - ala the USSR (btw, what's the story in that regard here? :p) - would be possible here.

Yeah, Ethiopia was allowed access, etc. at that port - closest one in Eritrea to the more populated regions of Ethiopia. And without the war - and the borders actually settled - that access would stay.

Lordganon 23:45, October 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? If I am correct, I would assume that the now independent SSRs would play an Eritrea, creating their own navy and such. But since only Georgia and the Baltic States would do so (the other two being landlocked), I am not too sure. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 23:55, October 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * They all actually got ships otl. While they wouldn't get the whole thing, they'd probably each get a couple here too. Eritrea, honestly, didn't get any mostly because, quite frankly, the Ethiopians were pricks about it. By the time anything was even talked about between the two otl, the ships had turned to scrap sitting in Yemeni harbors, and neither wanted them. That case is a very unusual one, actually. Most have some sort of agreement made. But, it wouldn't amount to more than, at most a destroyer each, and more likely patrol boats/corvettes like otl. Lordganon 00:11, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Now I was thinking about Eritrea, and I also knew that a united Ethiopia will not be possible, as the POD is just months later after Eritrean independence. I thought about the republics of Ethiopia, and I was thinking which republic should be part of Ethiopia since the provinces have been split between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Eritrea:

The Eritrean part of Afar is going to stay in Ethiopia because of its need for a coast.
 * Rashaida
 * Hedareb
 * Bilen
 * Saho
 * Nara
 * Kunama

By the way LG, my other comment about Kasmir and the Soviet Policies were not answered. May you please give me your response to it?

RandomWriterGuy 22:55, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

RWG, your comments on those matters made no sense and ignored almost everything already said here. Drop it. Kashmir is not a state or anything today, and that is why. Suggesting that they would do it here is ASB, and you've been told that already. And as for the economy, it would simply put, not end up like China.

As for the latest bit, I suggest you look at a map and the actual provinces of Ethiopia at the time. Eritrea was a full province in its own right - the entire thing. Not parts of it. There's no reason to give the Ethiopians that area, as has already been established. And, Eritrea had full support and control of the area.

Lordganon 23:21, October 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * What LG said. Sorry, but the Eritrea subject is officially closed. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:28, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

War on Terror
I want to announce that the War on Terror page is officially created. I used a table (similar to the one on this article and that), but in order to get it, I had to copy the table (I am sorry, but I was trying to do any copywriting, and yess all content was removed) and all I need to know is how the path of the war should go. Got any ideas? (It should go to a similar path in this article, like the destruction of al-Qaeda, but with some differences). Comment here and see if you got some fresh and funky ideas!

RandomWriterGuy 19:04, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Новая идея: Месопотамия (не Ирак)
Excuse the title, but I wanted to write it in Russian.

Anyway, I have been growing more and more frustrated with the names I have chosen for the Arab republics of Iraq. While Babylonia is alright, my main concern is Assyria. Now why am I writing a complaint on my own idea... because. The two main reasons why I hate the name is:


 * Assyria is currently used to describe the "land of the ," a distinct ethnic group in the region.
 * Assyria is considered a synonym, and is the direct source for  (which I believe has been a nation for a few years).

If we go back into history, we find out that Iraq as we know it was once part of the Ottoman Empire. And conveniently, it was divided into three provinces (lucky us, right?). The three provinces were Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul. Basra I like (it was even suggested by RWG), and Mosul is not needed because Kurdistan is pretty much the officially recognized name. But calling it Baghdad... I think not. Primarily because the city of Baghdad would be its own federal city.

Anyway, let's skip the reasons why I didn't choose these names, and get to the main proposal I have in mind. My idea is radical, but could be quite interesting. In short, Iraq would no longer be a nation, yet would be a republic of a new nation. In my idea, the Shia's and Kurds would not necessarily agree to remain in Iraq, but would declare sovereignty from Iraq instead. Rather than continuing a new Iraq, the three sovereign states create a new nation: the Mesopotamian Federation.

In more direct words, I would love the word Mesopotamia to be used for this Iraq. But for it to be used as a subdivision makes no sense. The only way I could explain it would be... if the Soviet Union decided to call themselves "Russia" right off the back, and the RSFSR had to call itself something else. Mesopotamia has more context for the region as a whole, not a subdivision. While Iraq could virtually go any way, but I see Iraq better suited for the once Hashemite kingdom it once was. Which is why I see the name Iraq best suited for the Sunni republic within a federation. And like RWG, my inspiration came from another timeline. In "An Independent in 2000," Iraq is divided into three independent nations: Iraq (a Sunni Islamic Republic), Basra (I think a US-backed state of Shias), and Kurdistan (i.e., Greater Kurdistan).

Here is my overall proposal/idea in greater detail.

With Saddam dead, the transitional government or Iraq would begin talks with the Kurds and Shias. While Kurdistan was virtually declared, the shia's had no formed government. After decades of abuse by the Hussein government, the Kurds and Shia's were skeptical about any Sunni-lead Iraq. The Shias would establish their own government, occupying the southern governorates of Iraq, but would not declare independence. Talks between Baghdad and the Kurds would eventually lead to the finalized border for Kurdistan. By the late 90s, and agreement would be made for the future of Iraq. The Republic of Iraq (which piratically only had de facto control in the Sunni regions by this time), the Shia-backed Republic of Basra, and Kurdistan agree on a new federation idea. The three entities would remain united under a new federal government, which would eventually become known as the Mesopotamian Federation (or the Federation of Mesopotamia). While the Sunnis' main concern was keeping the nation as a whole, the Kurds and Shias like the idea of establish a fresh start for the region. Rather than a Sunni-backed government (as it had been for decades), it would be a federation of sovereign states.

That is the basic idea, but I need to work out the details. Overall, I think this makes wonderful sense, gives Iraq a new image, and is not as "radical" as say... having Ethiopia and Eritrea remain united. Changing the name would also help eliminate the confusion between Iraq and Iran (that always confused me). I hope you like the idea, because I am really exited on the idea. I hope I explained it okay. Please don't say no. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:04, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Makes more sense on a number of counts, too. Lordganon 01:10, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree with it. But we do know that th coup that deposed Hussein is US-backed, so is it close to the US (like Saudi Arabia and Israel), or still close to the USSR? And how would the USSR respond to the coup (and also the fact it is US-Backed, how would they respond to that as well)?

RandomWriterGuy 19:55, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

Me, I'm thinking neither. Lordganon 09:01, October 17, 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Me, I'm thinking neither"? What are you exactly talking about?

RandomWriterGuy 21:53, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

The coup. As in neither the Americans nor the Soviets would be the backers. Lordganon 21:59, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean the COUP. I MEANT which side the new nation will be on: US or USSR?

RandomWriterGuy 22:13, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

No need to do that, lol.

Same answer still applies.

Lordganon 22:18, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

ya ne dumayu chto nada stelat messopotamiyu, No mojet byt pereimenovat Irak v messopotamiu. prosto ostavit granitsi i sdelat edinu messopotamskuyu gosudarstvo.LxCaucassus 22:35, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

Err..... huh? There's no way to translate that, given the conversion to non-Russian characters. Care to tell us what you're saying, lol? Lordganon 22:39, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

that I think that there's basicaly no reason to divy it up into 2 provinces and its better to just convert Iraq into one united messopotamina state(or perhaps a messopotamian confederation with the 3 seperate states(provinces) if divied up).LxCaucassus 23:30, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

Umm..... The confederation idea is exactly what Nuke has proposed. Lordganon 04:36, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Soviet ruble question
This is more of a question then a proposal. I know very little about economics, but I do know that 1 USD is about 30 RUB. I was hoping that this might be different in TTL. With a stronger Soviet economy, the SUR would become a more global currency. I put its importance at the same level as the JPY and the GBP, and even higher in comparison with the USD or EUR. I use the ISO codes, because it is easier XD

Anyway, my question would be... with a stronger SUR, would it be more in sync with the USD, or would it remain the same as OTL's RUB? I know the original currency of the Russian Federation (the RUR) suffered from high inflation, causing an economic collapse in 1998, leading to the implantation of the RUB that we know today. Obviously, this would not happen here, but does this mean it would grow more in sync with the USD? When I mean "sync", I am referring to the economic similarities between the two. For instance, the EUR is pretty much in sync (or was, don't know today) with the USD. But I do know that the JPY is a very powerful currency, but 1 USD is equal to 77 JPY (*Doctor Evil joke here*).

But in comparison, I would generally like to see for ttl, 1 USD is equal to about 3 SUR. This is my guess. Does anybody have any further knowledge on the issue? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:43, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

1 Euro is right now about 1.37 USD.

Well, the SUR is going to still get devalued. As we've noted before, there is going to be economic troubles in the SU in the early 90s. Not as bad as in Russia otl, but it'll happen still. And, atl, at this point, the Soviet economy is still weaker than the US economy.

The Yen is actually powerful because, normally, it is pretty stable - and backed up by Japan's economic power.

Unlike otl, here it's going to be unlikely that a revaluation would be needed. But, when a currency goes down like the SUR would early on, it's only going to recover partway. Simply put, if it has gone done drastically once, it's not going to be as trusted, and thus in demand to be traded, no matter what. A better economy/inflation here would mean less of a decline, and maybe a bit more trading, but it's still going to hurt.

30 to 1, is a bit low. 3 to 1, however, would be too high, in my opinion. Something more like 10-20 to 1 is more likely.

Lordganon 00:44, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

So does that mean that the USSR will suffer a recession and bankruptcy, but the effects will be smaller than OTL Russia, is that right? (Sorry to put my signature here, but the Enter key in my keyboard is not working) RandomWriterGuy 19:57, October 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I remember reading somewhere that this recession of the 90s would be severe (as any recession would be), but would not be in comparison with Russia in OTL. I remember someone saying that the recession would not be too severe, in which the standard of living in the USSR would still be reasonable than OTL Russia. Does this make any sense? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 20:43, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

Nuke has it. Lordganon 09:01, October 17, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. None of us know economics so this might take weeks to figure out.

RandomWriterGuy 21:54, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

2012 and stuff
Hello everybody. Had my attention focused on other topics, but I have been doing a lot of thinking about NU lately. There are currently three main things I have in mind, so let me get them off my chest. These do involve potential future events, but I have no intentions of canonizing future events.




 * 52 states?: I really hope LG knows that I have made PR a state months ago (I don't want another Ethiopia buzz kill again). Without getting into how PR became a state (look at the front page to see why), I have been growing some concerns about Congress admitting just one state. Many states have been admitted as pears to allow balance. Kentucky and Vermont, Maine and Missouri, Alaska and Hawaii, all added around the same time to allow balance (whether it be slavery or Democratic-Repulbican representation). So to add just one state, and be left with an odd number seems very fishy. I believe Congress would be more persuaded to add PR if another state was also added. PR is highly Democratic (the US party), so we need a Republican counterweight. Not wanting to split off parts of the other 50 states (so no Long Island [yet]), I believe we have one key place... Guam and the Northern Marianas. After doing some reading on the matter, I have found out that they have also been seeking statehood as recently as 2008, so you can see I like the idea. They have a large Republican representation, a large enough population (but still small), and Hawaii would no longer be alone in the Pacific (Alaska can come too... THE END!!!). I need to work out the details, but Guam and the Northern Marianas would be admitted as one state (probably just called the Marianas, or something else), and I don't believe the American Samoa should be a part of this new state (due to its far location).


 * 2012 Election: Dewey wins... moving on!


 * Differing Arab Spring: This is really a current event, and I am not going to be making up the future. However, how would the POD and changes here affect the Spring? My main concern is Libya, as I greatly believe NATO would (or should) play no role there as in OTL (the Soviets wouldn't allow it). But again, I don't believe the Soviets would be in a position to fight back, so this is a major problem for me. However, one of my greatest interests would be how Mesopotamia and South Yemen would affect the Spring. Both countries here would have little to no opposition towards their own government, leaving them to manipulate their neighbors?


 * But in the long run, here is one idea I have that might be interesting to look into. Similar to how Saudi Arabia intervened in Bahrain, it might be possible that Mesopotamia feels obligated to intervene in neighboring Syria. Both countries have had a positive relationship with each other (even seeking unification in many events [this idea may come up again... warning]), and I could potentially see Syrian support for this action. If an Arab country were to deal with Arab problems, I believe neither the US or USSR would depose this. I am not too sure whether South Yemen would do the same in assisting the North, but for another discussion.


 * Elections (seriously): (you know that was funny) this timeline is going to be very interesting. The were George Bush (winning a second term), Bill Clinton (who deals with scandal and 9/11), and Gore (he's super "serial"). Now who is next. Ironically, someone made a suggesting months ago (for ). Nothing against the guy, but he isn't my cup of tea. It should be noted that the overall expectations of the American people would be greatly different here. Socialist and progressive ideals of Obama wouldn't fly, and I believe America would be more centrist if anything. This is why I would like to suggest my own candidate for the Republican Party, and maybe for the presidency. I supported him in his 2008 bid, but since I live in Florida and a member of the Democratic Party, I couldn't vote for him in the primaries. He is practically in sync with my ideals, and he is a fellow Long Islander (BIG POINT FOR ME). Because of which, I put my choice for  as (of now) the leading Republican candidate to win the primary. I am open to any suggestions, but I got to support Rudy here.

--NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:16, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest Ron Paul (although I just believe that America would still have a libertarian inkling with him. Would Mitt Romney have a chance in this election as in OTL? I believe that John Huntsman would gain better ground in this election but as a nominee, it's up in the air. As for America being centrist, I don't think that would fly. In fact, I would say that America would be turning to the center-left with social democratic methods and the US would follow suit. So, maybe you should also consider who will run as the Democrats/Ind./3rd Parties. Freedemocracy95 04:13, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

No worries, Nuke, I know full well about it, lol.

You're right on pretty much everything about the politics of the areas, though at this point that wouldn't be the logic for admission. Rather, it would more so be that the area wants to be a state, and it's really hard to argue against it after letting another one join. You are correct about Samoa, as well.

Yes, the name would be likely be Mariana.

I doubt that they would intervene. That would not go over well with the neighbors, at all. And, the Saudis did that in Bahrain to prevent it spreading into their territory - they've a large Shiite population in the region not too far off, and that was the source of problems on the island.

I can see the Soviets actually joining with NATO in Libya, though it would not doubt be scaled down from otl. More or less, that would mean still fighting, but an eventual win for the rebels.

Yes, probably too early for Huntsman. Expect more in 2016, from him, otl and maybe atl. Expect him for State atl (heck, lol, otl wouldn't surprise me) if the Repubs win.

The biggest problem with Giuliani, imo, is all of his divorces. Note, too that I like the man as well. I just can't see him getting the nomination. Romney may work, but no chance at all for Paul.

Rudi as an early favorite would work, probably, even winning NH. I just can't really see most primaries going for him, unless atl he does run for governor first like he should have done otl. If he were to be the nominee, he'd need some hard-right Republican for the VP, as well.

But, I think the Republican nomination depends a ton on who runs against Clinton, and later Gore, in 2000, 2004, and 2008 (I assume Bush's VP in 1996) - what would your picks be there?

For the Democrats, Dean would have the inside track on the nomination. Really, unless Gore screws up badly in his second term, it's probably assured that he gets it. To counter him, mind, you need someone from the west, or south, for VP, and more of a centrist Democrat than a left-leaning one like Dean. Wesley Clark comes to mind off the top of my head, but I know there's a ton more out there.

Agreed on the Centrist aspect.

Lordganon 10:32, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget two important things: RandomWriterGuy 23:14, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the Soviet response for Kim Jong il's death? (And could this probably begin another set of Korea talks in this timeline?)
 * 2) Will the Occupy Wall Street Movement occur in this timeline? (And do you support it?)


 * I am going to say this only once! One of the questions I can't answer, and the other wouldn't change from OTL. And pestering me to get an answer is really pissing me off. We have told you time and time again... STOP PESTERING ME!!!!!!!!!!!! --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:14, January 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to pester you. I was just asking nicely. RandomWriterGuy 22:43, January 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * You wrote something here, and when you didn't get a response after 24 hours, you pester me on my talk page to answer. That IS pestering in my book. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:16, January 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * That wasn't ture, the questions were made a few days ago (january 16th!)! Not 24 hours! RandomWriterGuy 01:49, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

The timeframe between the question being asked, and your post on his page was around 30 hours. You need to give people time to respond. Lordganon 08:28, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

Top questions
Okay, I have been getting countless people asking me the same questions over and over again. Nothing wrong with that, it's just I can't answer them without some outside help. So let me try to explain how I currently see it.

The recession of the late noughties is going to be a hard one for me personally. I am not good at explaining economics (aside from currencies in general), and I am not too sure how the continuation of the USSR would change it. However, I came across an alternate history discussion board which discussed the continuation of the USSR and the recession, in which one said it would be likely not to happen. Based on the economic growth the USSR has in the late nineties and early noughties, this outcome could be possible. Along with the potential American will to beat the Soviets, and Soviet cooperation with Japan and the west, it seems more likely. If anything, it could lead to a global high by today. However (as the Great Depression showed us), does this economic rise eventually lead to an economic low? Obviously with no depression, there would be no protests towards the matter. Greece would not go bankrupt (not that Greece would become the wealthiest nation), there is no, and so on.

With the recent deaths of Osama bin Laden and Kim Jong-Il, people want to know what will happen here. Based on what I know about the USSR, they would not differ from the Russian and general CIS response to the death of the Dare Leader. In which, the USSR would send their condolences to the Kims, but at the same time work with the South Koreans on the matter. As for Bin Laden, I have been working on a potential new destiny for him, in which he dies earlier. More on that later.

I hope this helps out. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:24, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget about income inequality Nuke! Apparently, this was a leading factor into Occupy Wall Street. Both US and USSR have massive income inequalities. If both countries are going to avoid a recession, they may have to deal with this first. RandomWriterGuy 23:39, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Almost always, a period of economic high will lead to a down period.

"Inequality" has nothing to do with a recession happening.

Agreed on all counts, Nuke.

Lordganon 01:38, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Well, in OTL, although the recession did end, there were still problems. They include high unemployement, increased taxes (and decreased taxes on the rich), large deficits and debts, and multiple housing foreclosures.

There are all sorts of reasons Occupy Wall Street and the economic crises in Europe had to happen: it was because of the bad economy.

As I said before, the US and USSR must do anything about this to avoid the problems agead. RandomWriterGuy 00:31, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not the "bad economy" - rather, bad politics. Which have no reason at all to happen here.

Recession is still ongoing otl.

Lordganon 10:53, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

What I mentioned above (high taxes, inflation, low credit, foreclosures) can be an outcome of an economic crisis. I don't want to be implausible since Russia faced a similar problem like OTL. RandomWriterGuy 22:57, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Most of those are not the outcome of an economic crisis.

And, Nuke has already been over that.

Lordganon 02:47, January 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm having some difficulty trying to figure out what exactly you guys are talking about. Like I said, I am not an economics expert. Russia and the Soviet Union would have gone threw an inadvisable recession in the early '90s, but it would turn around by the later half of the decade. In other words, no economic collapse of Russia in '98 (as in OTL), and no global recession in '08. Yes, there may very well be a recession ATL, but not anywhere near the level as OTL. Gas prices would still be high, unemployment would rise, but nothing the US (or the world) hasn't gone threw before. may very well still exist here, the eurozone would most likely be stable, Greece may be going threw their worst recession they have seen in a long time (but still not bankrupt). Again, not an economic expert, so I may be very well off. But again, the late '00s recession would be nowhere near OTL levels. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 03:15, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Presidents for now
Greetings all. Been a while, but now I am here. I have some new idea coming up soon (maybe within the week; no promises), but for now lets discuss the. For a while, I have been wanting to redo the lineup, for several reasons. The most compelling reason is that the lineup's caretaker (Alexanders) has been absent from the timeline since last July (I am sure he has his reasons), but the primary reason is that I do not like the lineup myself (but accepted them to have the timeline move on). After doing some more research, I have decided on some new candidates, and I would love to debate them before I make any changes.

Let's start with the 1996 Presidential candidates (Bush gains a second term from the last one, no exceptions), I am currently considering a Gore vs. Quayle race. While I support Clinton, I find it rather hard to come to the conclusion that after being the party candidate in 1992 that he would be able to get the candidacy in 1996. The only President that I know of that lost the Presidency, and came back again to win was Richard Nixon, but this was a several elections later. Obviously, I believe Gore would win, and would remain President for two terms. I have selected Bob Kerrey to be his Vice President.

In 2004, I am currently debated between John Kerry and Howard Dean as being the Democratic nominee. George W. Bush may be the nominee for the Republicans, but I believe Kerry or Dean may win the Presidency and remain the President for two terms. This one is hard for me to answer, so here is the primary debate for here (I am open to new candidates as well). Just remember, no Iraq or Afghanistan war (though I believe the US may still have soldiers in Sudan after 9/11), a modest economy, and obviously good relations with the USSR.

2012 can't be answered yet (because it hasn't happened yet). But again, my favorite is still Rudy for the Republicans, but it will greatly depend on who runs for the Democrats. Whether or not this is allowed here, I have been thinking about Giuliani's destiny here, and maybe he will run for the Governorship of New York in 2006 or even earlier in 2002 (I still need to do some research on how the altered Presidency may affect the gubernatorial elections of New York). This may help boost him to being a favorite for the Republican nominee. But again, too soon to tell.

That's it for now, I hope you all like the change ideas. P.S., has been breached!!!!

~Nuke

Have to agree on Clinton. After having lost like that, it is rare for someone to be able to run again, especially immediately, barring the party having no chance at all.

Four more years is also probably enough time for more accusations against him to arise, too.

Gore'd be the candidate, agreed. And win, too. Kerrey would also not run in 2004, more likely than not, given his otl choices.

Agree on Kerry for 2004. Dean's flaws remain, and Kerry will seem the better candidate still. Dean wouldn't get the VP role, however - maybe Wesley Clark? Either way, someone from that region.

But, that's four more years for Bush to make a fool of himself. Rather doubt it'd be him running.

Definitely Quayle in 1996. He's not going to have the... stench? of failure like otl, and Dole's just too old. Someone more moderate - and, nicer - for the VP spot. Southern, or Western - not Northeastern.

I'd guess McCain against Gore in 2000. Someone more radical for the VP slot, obviously, and Midwestern or southern would be likely.

As I've noted before, so long as Rudy is governor for a while, he'd get the nomination easy enough. Paul, however, would not be the VP spot. He's got very little support in the party, truth be told. Someone more radical, yes, but...... not him. From the south, probably, too.

I'd guess that Kerry's VP would be the nominee in 2012. Not going to be Edwards, mind, but it's definitely someone more southern. Someone from the north for the VP spot.

Lordganon 04:31, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Been watching your president list as you edit it, Nuke. Looks reasonable enough, I think.

That being said, however.... Both Rudy and Romney are from the moderate wing of the party. No way are they both going to be on the same ticket. Add to that that they are both from the northeast, in states that the Repubs would almost for sure lose. Needs someone opposite Rudy that would balance that out.

Given the new situation you've made up....

Tom Vilsack would likely run for the Dems nomination in 2012 - but, I have to doubt that he could get it.

My line of thinking, you're going to have to have someone with credentials similar to Rudy's. Probably more defense-oriented, too. Not from the "left" wing of the party, either. I'd take a guess at someone more southern too.

Lordganon 06:28, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see that my sandbox is watched. ;) As for Vilsack, he isn't the candidate, he is the Vice Presidential candidate for 2008 (as far as I am thinking), and it would be John Edwards who is the Democratic nominee. I also wanted to let you know that I got the idea from an alternate history, so that is where I got the Mitt Romney VP idea, but I have been pushing the idea of Mike Huckabee as a potential VP. It is still a work-in-progress, so I am glad that I could get some early advice. Большое спасибо. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:15, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Nono you misread me - I was talking about Vilsack running in 2012, not 2008. Well aware of Vilsack's 2008 position.

Huckabee would work well to counter Rudy on the ticket.

<Encourages Wesley Clark to be the Dem nominee for 2012>

Lordganon 21:31, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a misunderstanding. Wesley Clark, eh? Any particular reason? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:13, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Well, far as I've noticed, he meets the conditions that would need to be met for a challenger to have a chance against Rudy - southern, from the more right side of the Democrats, military experience. He also had a lot of support otl, and if he'd have had the sense to run in the Iowa caucuses, would have had a very good chance of getting the nomination. Kind of like 2004's version of Rudy, lol.

Basically someone I like, and wish was in office in some form right now, lol.

Looking over things, there's really not that many democrats in the southern regions that really might run, either. Edwards, no chance he would have not been exposed for his "activities" by now.

Others, in something close to an order....

Jim Webb, Senator from Virginia Mark Warner, Senator from Virginia Steny Hoyer, Congressman from Maryland Jim Moran, Congressman from Virginia Claire McCaskill, Senator from Missouri Steve Beshear, Governor of Kentucky Kay Hagan, Senator from North Carolina Mary Landrieu, Senator from Louisiana

I've heard Webb and Warner - along with, obviously, Clark - mentioned in circles about possible VPs or Presidential candidates before. The others here, not so much, but they're the only ones with any sort of name recognition, I believe.

And, to counter that on the ticket, you'd need, given Rudy, probably someone from the northeast. At the very least, not southern in any way.

Lordganon 08:13, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Я скучаю по Каддафи
I think I now have an interesting outcome of the Libyan Civil War for here. I have been thinking and researching this for weeks now, and I think it may be an interesting move to do.


 * Soviets do get involved

While I don't know so much details as of how (maybe they do vote in favor of the no fly zone), but the Soviets now find themselves as part of the coalition in Libya. Obviously, unlike the other members, the USSR is strictly there to enforce a no fly zone, and in no way to help in the war (at least not directly or intentionally).


 * "Yugolibya"

Or "Yugoarabia," whichever metaphor you wish. With the Soviets (presumably) preventing the west from interfering in Libya, and the hopeful outcome that the Soviet presence will either calm or scare Gaddafi from attacking his own people, the Civil War should turn more and more into a stalemate. By today, the war turned from being a winner take all, and into a growing two-state solution. While the situation is not finalized in Libya, and it is only recently that Gaddafi has begun to see the solution as a potential benefit. Despite which, the NTC would declare the independence of Cyrenaica from Libya (which is recognized by the nations which recognized the NTC), and a Yugoslavia situation is developing in Libya.

It still needs some work, but this is the basic idea. Hope you all like it. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 22:12, February 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Call it that they don't vote in favor of it, but at the same time choose to not veto it.


 * With that outcome, they decide to join the force, in order to ensure that it is a "no-fly zone" despite what the other powers would be doing.


 * That said, I like the idea. Quite frankly, they weren't all that far off doing it otl, and I can easily see them doing it if a stalemate continued for another year longer than otl.


 * Also, given the feeling held for the royals there.... bet on the Libyan/Cyrenican royal family being invited to become kings there.


 * Lordganon 22:21, February 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * I could actually see this still occuring in OTL, obviously not with Gaddafi at the reigns, but the so-called pro-Gaddafi faction actually is still pretty strong and a renewal of the civil war is pretty likely. I would keep this, especially since Cyrenaica is more ethnically homogenous then the part Gaddafi gets. Great work! Gatemonger 22:34, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Glad I got it okay. So the Soviets neither don't vote in favor and chose not to veto. In short... they abstain as was Russia's doing OTL. I also forgot to mention, with the USSR becoming active in Libya, there would be no NATO involvement, and no way the US can form any type of united command. Like I mentioned, work still needs to be done. Other ideas I have would include a potential Moscow-brokered deal to move Gaddafi out of Libya and prop-up a pro-Moscow democracy in Tripoli (more or less).

I also want to add... why am I shocked that you had to say royals. Then again, why wouldn't I be shocked, especially since I have never heard of this being an option. Again, I am a republican, and therefore I hate Kings (since they burned our White House). No, seriously: I researched this real quick, and now I find myself attracted (in a geopolitical way) to Mohammed El Senussi. But for now... let's see what happens.

One last thing, is it possible that we can start using "paragraph spacing" when a new user comment is written (i.e., :, :: , and so on). It gets harder to know when a user comment ends and a new one begins. I tend to find myself adding them (as I just did). Nitpicking, I know, but I had to say it. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:49, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

More or less that, Nuke.

Gaddy is a little too crazy to take such a deal, imo. Though, a little "do it or we'll let the US blow the snot out of you" may do the trick, lol.

Well, you know full well I'm a monarchist, lol. Though blaming King George for the Brits burning Washington when he held no real power makes little sense, lol.

Yeah, Senussi is an interesting person. Even more so, the people out that way adore his family. Be a really good way to differentiate themselves from the west, too.

Hate the spacing, Nuke, and funny enough, I usually find myself removing them, lol. Hate how they end up travelling over the page and screwing it up, really, and don't think them necessary.

Lordganon 02:22, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Stuff and more stuff
Hello, hello. I believe I have most of my new ideas in a row. I hope you like them.


 * Afghanistan

It is already canon that Gorbachev would never allow the Najibullah government to collapse, but at the same time work to bring peace in the country. What I didn't know was that Moscow already had a plan in motion prior to the August Coup (one which I was not aware of). The plan calls for Najibullah to step down, handing over power to his Prime Minister. The PM would only be acting president until elections could be held. The ironic question would be: what would be the Afghan's path?

I remember reading an article a while back, in which the the Afghan people had a poll to what their favorite government in recent history was. Despite many of them having live in the pre-war Afghanistan, the majority voted for the Najibullah government between 1987-1992. I forget the exact percent, but enough to cause notice. So in a combination of fear and support, one idea I have is that the (founded by Najibullah, and supported by the Parcham faction of the former ) gains the support of the Afghan people in their first elections. With other candidates (especially those supportive of ) supporting a government that would be hostile to the USSR, I can see Soviet rubles finding their way to promote a Watan victory.

I have been doing research on the matter, and I have to support as the Watan candidate for President. She would gain support in the party for one reason... she has no ties to Najibullah. She has many ideals of both factions of the former PDPA, so she could have been seen as a mediator to end the infighting withing the socialist circles. She is defiantly pro-Soviet (a definitive favorite in Moscow). And one characteristic that seems to be HUGE irony to what Afghanistan faced in OTL... she would be the first woman leader of the nation (in a time when women's rights were alright, but still needed pushing).

I am not too sure about other candidates, but if accepted, Ratebzad would only win at a close majority (51% or something). In the end, debates would rage on whether this was truly a democratic election, the usual. Despite the elections, war would soon spark again, this time leading to the secession of several southern provinces into Pashtunistan, leading to a Cyprus-like situation.


 * Yugoslavia (and Greece?)

After months of consideration and discussions with LG, I now come to the conclusion that the Partitioning of Bosnia is completely ASB in many cases. Instead, my focus turned to seeing if a peaceful solution could happen in the region. While it is still too late to safe a "full Yugoslavia," I believe a rump-Yugoslavia is better than no Yugoslavia.

As for Bosnia and Herzegovina, I am now looking into the idea that the Carrington-Cutileiro plan (more or less) would be accepted (or rather continued to be accepted), which would agree to turn the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina into the independent "Confederation of Bosnia and Herzegovina." In short, it would turn Bosnia into a Swiss-styled confederation, divided between the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims (if there is no war, would "Bosniak" even emerge as an ethnic name?). There will still need to be fixes to what OTL's plan called for, but it could be possible to see something quite peaceful.

The only foreseeable war would be in Croatia, between the and Zagreb. I believe there was a peace plan calling for RSK to become an autonomous entity within Croatia, but not sure at the moment. But with no war in Bosnia, I don't believe Operation Storm would be done (let alone tolerated by the international community), so it may very well continue to exist (moving the "divided Bosnia" situation into Croatia). Vladivostok may be mad at me for this (hope not).

With no war and an economically sound Yugoslavia, one idea I have to bring up would be Slobodan's seriously considered proposal of a Greco-Yugoslav Confederation. I know very little about the idea, other than it would have acted more like the EU than a true nation. This is just an idea I wanted to throw in the ring. If it just remains an idea like OTL, than it would still be one of the leading pushes to a Yugoslav-Macedonian reunification (which is already canon), and may also be a big assistance for the Greek economy. Another issue would be... if no war, how would this affect Slobodan's polices towards the Albanians. In short... would no war make him "sane"? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:59, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're reading too much into that poll, Nuke. It's their favorite because it was (relatively) peaceful, and generally left them alone. That's something you really can't say about the rest.

I rather have to doubt that it'd be possible to bribe or otherwise influence with money enough people in the area to win a real election.

And, no way on earth they'd elect a woman.

Yes, "Bosniak" would still emerge.... well, rather it already existed on some level, but the usage would increase.

As I said to you before, that plan would stand a good chance of being followed atl. But.... as with any plan, complications would happen. More or less, that while the leaderships - with the worst being the Serbs - may go along, bet their militias do not. Won't be a war, per se..... but it won't die down without peacekeepers, and armed ones at that.

Rather unlikely that the Croats wouldn't proceed much as in otl. May get a little more trouble, and with more of them actually getting charged with war crimes, but.... the overall result is unlikely to change.

The idea about Greece really wasn't realistic at the time, nor was it ever, truth be told. Greek leaders basically all responded with "interesting but should be thoroughly examined." What statements like that amount to is being nice to a nation they are on good terms with, but a "no" otherwise.

Milošević was nuts.... well, let's go with so nationalistic that he was nuts. Amounts to the same thing. No reason that would ever change.

Lordganon 01:56, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

how to contribute withouth breaking the rules.
What i have to do to contribute in this timeline for improving or creating new articles., add the proposal mark? ask the administrators of the wiki? ask the creator of the wiki? ( who i don't know).

Breizhcatalonia1993


 * Greetings. FYI, I am the creator of the timeline (a pleasure to meet you). I appreciate your cautious attitude towards any contributions. I would suggest reading the . If you want to create an article, you are free to create one (provided that you add the proper template and make mention about it here so we can discuss any issues and sync the page to the timeline). If you wish to add to an already existing article, you have to bring it here first. If it is only grammatical corrections (like something is spelled wrong), than that is okay to correct. Hope you have fun. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 02:21, May 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, the problem is that i already added a few things to the article of Japan with the proposal mark, then i waited and after something like one month is not changed, does that mean that i made things the right way? I already readed the ditorial guidelines but they are quite confusing to me :P, anyway, i am starting my alternate history which is about russia becoming a totally democratic constitutional monarchy because Tsar Alexander II is not assasinated in (he wanted to implement real reforms in the real life), communism, though, exists but just as a democratic ideology like social-democracy, i mean , they not want to instaure a dictatorship, just won the elections, if they win, they continue in power, if they lose, they cede the power to the winning party, which will make Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev, Kruschev, Andropov, etc, appear as just one more candidate to the elections and communism will have gained elections in 1940, 1952, 1974, 1994, and 2000. While in other elections rightist and center parties win the elections. Russia has its actual territories because circumstances conduct to do so., would you also like to contribute in my alternate history?. I have decided to put it on free editing but it will have to pass my revision. Here you have the link:Rossiskaya Imperiya KD.


 * Breizhcatalonia1993


 * A pleasure to meet you :), btw, where are you from?

Oh, I think I understand. The reason I removed your edits from the article is because the page itself was a proposal itself. Since you were not part of the proposed page, I had to remove it. If an article has a template which reads "Under Construction" or "Proposal", that make it off limits to anyone who is not the caretaker. If you make a proposed page, than you are the caretaker and can do as you wish. I do apologize for the these complicated rules, but I am merely being cautious. Within the past year, I have had two users attempt to usurp control from two of my timelines (including this one). In short, let me see how you drive before I give your the keys to my car (if that makes any sense).

A timeline about a democratic Russian Empire. A very interesting idea. My only question would be the world wars. As for your question, I was born in New York, and I live in Florida (all American). I have been teaching myself Russian, and I happen to live in the one part of Florida where there are Russians. I hope that helps. I also pleased to meet you, and welcome to alternate history, and I can't wait to read more of your new timeline. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:40, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

I have seen the link to Japan and my edits ( refering to officiality of russian language in the kuril Islands) are not removed :P, but if you want, remove it, there is no problem, i will just propose it in the talk page.

The world wars will be the same and with the same results with the exception that france will be in the axis during all the war due to a coup d'etàt by french fascists in 1937 that was succesful, then, Japan will be in the allies instead of france ( japan was in the allies in the first world war), and france will be occupated like germany in four sectors (British, Russian, Japanese, and Italian) (as they changed to the allies because they killed mussolini). I'm also teaching myself russian, you can read where am i from in my my user page:Breizhcatalonia1993

PD: That Russian empire will have their actual borders since 1918 because of the independence since that year from all the countries that they dominated, that latin alphabet till 1928 ( both as part of the russian empire and independent) and the cyrillic alphabet till 1928 ( i am refering to central asian countries) ,all the other countries will continue with the alphabets that they use (ucraine, estonia, bealrus...), and they also will have Kaliningrad as in OTL because it was given to them after the second world war. You have readed what i writed till now on my timeline?.

Anyway, i want to ask you a thing, how one can do a poll for its own timeline? (my case).

Proposal about Cyprus.
I think this timeline offers a good oportunity to settle the conflict of cyprus and unite cyprus as an independent an united country with the actual flag (the one with the map of cyprus and the olive branch), for fit with this timeline, that the conflict will be resolved in the after 1994 ( I would suggest 1994 for the anniversary of the war, what do you think?

Breizhcatalonia1993 21:56, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

Probably not that realistic, Brez. They've been trying that for decades, and both sides refuse any fair agreements, and only tend to propose ones that are good for only their side. Lordganon 22:15, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

I know it is not realistic, but that's why that is alternate history don't it? I forgot to say that it will be the Soviet Union who will solutionate the conflict, a united and federal cyprus with two regions, greek cyprus and northern cyprus, greek cyprus will use the greek flag as the flag of their region and northern cyprus the flag of the TNRC. I can work and propose here an agreement between the two sides. And i just said that because in this timeline other countries and problems from that countries are showed.

Breizhcatalonia1993 11:55, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

That's the thing. History isn't "plausible". There are likely many examples of events in our timeline that would make another world's alternate historians scoff. Fiction (usually) needs a rational progression of events. Reality has proven that it need not abide by those standards. There are the unbreakable rules (of physics), but free will can make historical events go on strange tangents. But my whole argument is likely just philosophy.

Yank 13:03, May 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * I already brought up this idea for the timeline, and I removed it because it couldn't work. The subject is closed. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:09, May 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, anyway i'm already happy with you trying to brought up the idea, btw, could you answer my "anthems" question in the Pridnestrovie Article?


 * Breizhcatalonia1993 14:26, May 20, 2012 (UTC)

Ideas
You might be quite busy, I understand, but I have a few questions as to the Middle East (most notably Pakistan and Afghanistan) as well as the US elections.
 *  Massoud Presidency:  Considering the fact that Al-qaeda is in Sudan and Somalia and the Taliban is now the state of Pashtunistan, I'd expect Ahmad Shah Massoud to become President of Afghanistan as a part of forming an alliance with the Afghani government during the Civil War as well as being a figure for sovereignty for the Afghanis during the conflict during the Republic's self-determination phase following the change of the USSR. Would Massoud have his Presidency today or would it be a President in the time of Afghanistan's new history?
 *  Benazir Bhutto Today:  Since Al-Qaeda would have virtually zero entrenchments in Pakistan (although Pashtunistan may have some effect in the country), would Bhutto hve not been assasinated? Also, if that is the case, what effect would the Pakistani's People Party have today (would it be just the same as in OTL)?
 *  Mohamed Morsi?: Would the elections for parliament and the Presidency in Egypt still result in a Muslim Brotherhood victory for an islamist Egypt, or would there be differences? To me, I would believe that the MB would keep to winning 1/3 of Constituent Assembly seats (I think that Egyptians would be skeptical of having a military-influenced constitution, considering that Tantawi is more pro-Mubarak than anything and there would be a move for change all over the contry, and would reject the referendum). Now, I do believe that with the belief that the Salafist Al-Nour party would've taken 10% of seats, the two major islamist blocks would total 215 seats and take a slight lead over the secular and liberal groups with 212 seats (even though they'd have a slight lead seperately). As for the President, I believed that Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh was a good candidate to mediate between the islamist and secular factions of Egypt while working with the military, but I also believe that he would push a unity government for the sake of Egypt.
 *  Giuliani for the Win?:  Should we expect America's mayor to win his second term as POTUS?

Please, take your time when figuring out for all the answers and thank you kindly for the answers recieved.

ALibertarianModerate95 14:18, July 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * Massoud &mdash; I am already working on the history of Afghanistan. In it, the former king returns and becomes active in politics. Massoud would then work out a peace agreement with Najibullah's government, since he wouldn't consider fighting the same government that had the king in it. While it is still a WIP, Massoud would not become president, but he would still be alive (which is probably better) and probably part of the politics of the nation.


 * Bhutto &mdash; I know very little about her to make a definitive answer. I do know that she was a major supporter of the US during the Soviet War in Afghanistan, and was among the supporters to form a pro-Pakistani government in Afghanistan. I am open to any ideas.


 * Morsi &mdash; The USSR had little to no major affect in Egyptian politics (the US was the major Egyptian supporter). I doubt there would be any major change here. But again, I am not an expert on Egypt.


 * Giuliani &mdash; It is still a WIP. I believe LG suggested as being a potential nominee of the Democratic Party. Again, it is still a work-in-progress, and while this site isn't a future-oriented site, I guess all I can say is that Giuliani's approval rating is pretty good at this time.

I understand, Nuclear. I am looking for a broad conensus but your input is very much needed and it does give ground to build upon, so thank you. With that: I have several more issues to talk about, but I shall give those the next time you may be available. I would like some more ideas as to this and a more broad opinion base, but thank you Nuclear for your input and have fun on that other timeline!
 * I hope this helps out. I am currently active in another timeline of mine, so forgive me if I am not too detailed here. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:25, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
 *  Massoud:  I believe that with the Afghani King returning to power, it may give Najibullah leverage as a Premier for the new Afghanistan and with the peace agreement, it may form some sort of an alliance between the two and may make Massoud Defense Minister. Now, I still see Massoud as a main figure for Afghani politics in the future and I think that he may make it out as a Premier and may be the middle ground for the pro-Najibullahs and the Mujahideen, but I think I'd rather see how this goes first. But, I agree, he'd definitely be alive in the ATL. Does this mean, however, that Pashtunistan no longer exists?
 * Bhutto: I'll send some research about her if needed.
 * Morsi  :  Well, I agree that (thanks to Sadat) the USSR has no influence over Egypt, when it did under Nasser. However, I think that the Muslim Brotherhood would have restrictive influence over Egypt and, thanks to the Army, I do not believe that MB islamists would get beyond 166 of 498 seats (adding in the independents leaning in favor for the secular parties and MB, but less to the ultra-conservatives). Even if the two major islamic blocs held a slight majority, I doubt that Egyptians are willing to change Egypt fundamentally from one bad state to the next and the liberal factions would have a major influence in the Constituent Asembly, despite an Islamist lead by only a few seats. Also, they may hate the US and Israel, but I doubt they'd be wanting a hardliner to lead. So, I believe that Morsi would be considered too extreme for the needed majority of Egyptians (and considering the concessions to Tantawi for both elections, that would play a treasonus for some) but I do believe that Fotouh may play as a moderate willing to unite the Islamist and secular factions and get the military to cooperate in a new government (It'd still keep good tides with the US, just has more of wanting a say-so now).
 *  Giuliani 2012: I understand about not knowing the future of this timeline, but I was conidering what the Giuliani administration would play for it leadership. Considering Giuliani's moderte stances and Huckabee playing as the conservative side of the administration, I would believe that they may have ome sort of a lead inn polls and I'd think that they do okay, but a for a second term, I'd say it would depend on the Democratic candidate and what gaffes we think that this Administration would have (e.g. : Would Libya/Egypt be a disaster?)

ALibertarianModerate95 23:45, July 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad I could help. Just to clarify:


 * Massoud &mdash; Let's worry about Massoud I can finalize what Afghanistan will be in ALT.
 * Bhutto &mdash; I will have to more reading, but I see nothing outright wrong with Bhutto not being assassinated and coming back to Pakistani politics
 * Morsi &mdash; I would personally like to get LG and others' opinion before we go ahead and change how Egypt's election came out (especially since it just happened)
 * Giuliani &mdash; since this is a talk page (and I was being quick and lazy previously), I see no reason as to why Giuliani wouldn't be reelected in 2012. So unless otherwise, best to expect a second term as of now.


 * Also, I am always open to new ideas. Without going overboard, what are your other questions? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:25, July 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Back to Massoud &mdash; I believe that Massoud would be an important figure because of him being the military leader of the Mujhadeen during the Soviet War in Afghanistan. Now, with his leadership, he was generally against Najibullah, but before the latter was slaughtered by the Taliban in 1996 (OTL), he tried twice to have Najibullah flee Kabul from the Taliban, considering that the two knew each other since childhood, even if they were political rivals. Now, I say that in this ATL, Massoud would become a key political figure in Afghanistan today because despite the fact that he was more of a conservative who wanted an Afghanistan that was more in the needs of the Afghani and its Islamist-dominant population, he wanted a democratic Afghanistan and a better country for the future, something that the Najibullah government would follow for the sake of a democratic USSR and a new world post-Cold War. So, despite political differences, I believe that Najibullah and Massoud would have a better relationship for the sake of a new Afghanistan and would lead not only the military following the peace deal, but would one day become a poltitcal leader of Afghanistan.
 * Giuliani: I'd agree. I totally see Giuliani staying as President through 2017, though I'll ask in 2016 who will be #45 (Also, I'll ask by 2014 who will be #4 in Moscow)
 * UK Today: Would David Cameron be considered as too conservative in today's ATL?

Well, I completely understand your stance on Egypt, and I would like to hear about that from LG and others over time. Now, about some other things:

I could explain other questions though I am at an extreme writer's block on questions, so, I'll handle some more later. :P

ALibertarianModerate95 (talk) 17:15, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

Massoud turned down opportunities in otl to be in charge, holding out for dialog or for others to take charge. There's a reason why he was only defense minister. That's about all he would do here. As for supporting Najibullah, he would do so following the Soviet withdrawal fairly easily, given some time, which has happened here. The man did, after all, want him to survive the Taliban otl, which is pretty significant given all the things that happened between them.

Given what is written about Pashtunistan, and the events in the area, there is still radicals there, just not the main base of Al-Qaeda as in otl. However, there would still be less than in otl in the region. I'd say that odds are reasonable that Benazir Bhutto would still be alive. Heck, her support would likely be up, with the existence of Pashtunistan and all.

The Muslim Brotherhood is more or less guaranteed to win the largest number of seats, though a plurality, in the parliamentary elections, like in otl. It's a simple question of organization - they have it, and no others really had it then. Maybe the numbers drop slightly. Seats for the more radical parties will also be likely to see a similar fall. Leftist parties, given things, are likely to stay about the same. Both of the main secular parties - the New Wafd Party and the Egyptian Bloc - will be the beneficiaries.

I'd guess 180-200 seats for the Brotherhood, 90-100 for the Islamic Bloc, and something in the area of 60 seats apiece for the two secular parties. The others largely remain unchanged - maybe one or two seats more or less each. The Brotherhood has less ability to govern like this, and will be pushed somewhat away from the hardliners.

Morsi would still get into the runoff. No matter the loss of support for the Brotherhood - and they will still lose it (power is unbecoming, after all) - it will still be enough for him to get into the runoff. Remember, he is not a hardliner, despite what some may tell you. Heck, he's more moderate in most ways than Fotouh.

To oppose him in the runoff.... Fotouh is unlikely. While he is more able to work with others, he is less moderate than Morsi. Moreover, while having "left" the brotherhood, he still had a lot of support from its rank and file. Basically, the support is divided between the two, and there is a reason why Morsi placed higher otl than the other.

Opposing Morsi would either be Sabahi, or Shafik. Between them, I think it's largely a toss-up. But, Sabahi is more likely of the two.

In the run-off, Morsi loses. Numbers probably similar to the otl ones, though reversed against Morsi.

Rudy is almost assured a second term. I'd guess that the next republican after him - especially if it is the VP - would lose, but Rudy should win.

Running against him, we're kind of stuck. Can't run a more left-wing candidate. Can't run a person from New York (And Clinton still has the same reasons for not running, I think), and the rest of the northeast may not be the best idea, either.

Basically, needs to be more moderate. And it needs to be somebody who can "match" credentials. There really isn't all that many Dems that can do that. Kerry, Webb, and Clark are the best in that way. Kerry ran already, and lost. Webb has no desire for the role. Leaves us with Clark. That I like the man doesn't hurt either, lol.

Looking into things, five names come to the front for the lower half of the ticket. People that were considered otl, by and large. Former Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, former Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico (likely the second-place guy in the primaries), Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, former Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia, and former Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana are the likely candidates, in that order. Geographically, Policy-wise, and Perceived abilities all complement Clark. I'd guess Rendell, simply because PA is a major swing state, over the others with similar qualifications.

Next president would, by my guess, be an experienced, moderate, Democrat. Probably a Senator or Congressman, but not definitely. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Maryland Governor Mark O'Malley, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, and Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe are all rumored now otl - along with the VP, of course - to be candidates. All would have a shot atl, though I'd bet on the Virginian myself, with Cuomo in second.

David Cameron is, except in policy towards the EU, pretty moderate. He would likely be the leader of the Conservative party here. Though, without Iraq to hold against Labour, he may not be the PM. Either way there's a coalition government, mind. Bet on the SNP not doing nearly so well in Scotland, either.

Lordganon (talk) 03:15, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

Well, on that, LG:

Now, with those done, here's some more: Thanks for your input, and I would love to hear your response. ALibertarianModerate95 (talk) 17:27, July 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Massoud: Massoud might stay in Parliament nontheless and since he only wants to lead the army, he may as well stay in that position. I don't have any doubt, thought, that he might stay as a parliamentary member for some time even today. My main belief was that thanks to Zahir Shah returning to the throne, Pashtunistan would not really lift off the ground because of the conservative unionists willing to follow the KIng. However, in the case that the state is still around, I believe that it will be still unrecognized. And with Bhutto still around, I can agree that she would remain as Prime Minister even today, thanks to her party. What I don't understand, however, is how would a Bhutto-led Pakistan influence a Hekmatyar-dictated Pashtunistan?
 * Egypt: I can understand the Brotherhood's support undoubtedly handing them a plurality in some cases (largely to the predominantly-Muslim population of Egypt), but that would undoubtedly place the FJP at a little more central stance, because I just can't see Egypt driving off into the right entirely. Given the leadership of a pro-Nasserist party, I believe that Sabahi would not only attract the secular and liberal base, but the pro-Mubarak/Army base as well (beating Shafiq for the runoff against Morsi). In the end, I believe that despite the moderate Morsi, Sabahi would gain a slight majority, however I believe that it would be slightly smaller numbers than otl, maybe 500,000 to 750,000 votes. Given the Muslim base, Sabahi could wean off some, but not enough for a wider majority against Morsi
 * Giuliani: If I could pick solely out of spectrum a Democratic President, I'd pick Bayh for his moderately conservative stance and would put quite a number of red states to swing over to blue. Bayh would be my choice as a running mate if Rendell is running, because with Bayh, Rendell can swing Pennsylvania in his favor and may capture some red states as well. Richardspn, on the other part, may capture New mexico to be safe and with a close finish in the primaries, it may energize the Democrat. Now, I have to agree to an extent that it'd be a Blue win because despite him working with a really moderate Republican, Huckabee may sour voters for leaning too far to the right. And, depending on Giuliani's support for Term 2, you really got to cash in as to would the Republican Party be willing to do anything to replace Huckabee and, if so, with whom? Christie, maybe, but I don't think they'd have much of a choice.
 * UK Today: Well, with no Iraq, that would mean that Blair wouldn't leave office in 2007 (largely because of popularity not being affected by Iraq or by being a bush puppet lol), so would that mean that Blair would hold the Premiership today (making him the third-longest reigning Premier) or would the show be handed over to Brown/EdMilliband in 2010? I'd say Ed because of this Blue labour ideology. But, undoubtedly, I'd see a Labour-Lib Dem Coalition and another general election in 2014 (rather than the 2015 date that the otl coalition placed).
 * Damascus-Moscow Ties?: Given the conflict in Syria and how in otl, Moscow is pretty much stagnant in losing their arms dealer, could we say the same for Tereshkova and the USSR, or would Tereshkova try to find another dealer?
 * Cyrenaica: Given that most of the Western nations (hold Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador, and some others) would recognize the National Transitional Council as the government of Libya and since the compromise would be made that Libya would break off its eastern part into Cyrenaica for the Benghazi government, why wouldn't the same states recognize Cyrenaica? And, with Gaddafi, would he be considered too extreme for Moscow's or Beijing's taste and find one of the sons or a member of the pro-Gaddafi faction?
 * Labour Leader: Would I be correct in saying that Miliband's centre stance may give him a shot for the Premiership, or would Tony Blair be safe in his spot? Or am I entirely wrong, and Brown is Premier after all?

A quick correction, doesn't regain the thrown. He returns to Afghanistan and becomes part of Najibullah's government. I know very little about Egypt or the UK, so you guys are speaking gibberish to me. XP Forgive me if I am going to be slow on them. I also don't believe we should be worrying about future elections (plenty of fun in the present).

As for the new things brought up. Anything involving the Middle East and the Arab Spring is going to be difficult to answer right away, because they are happening as we speak. But to my best of knowledge:


 * Cyrenaica &mdash; (staring here) like I made mention to you over on Gorby's page, time slips by when new things are brought up. In short, the page is out of date. But to correct, Cyrenaica is recognized as independent by the nations that recognized the transition government, but it is not globally recognized. Consider it this timeline's Kosovo at the present.


 * Syria &mdash; I couldn't say what ATL USSR would do here. The reason Cyrenaica exists is because the USSR votes in favor of a no-fly zone over Libya, leading to the Soviets being included in the coalition force. My guess is that the USSR may support a similar proposal in Syria (which OTL Russia outright vetoed), but I can't say for sure. LG, your thoughts?


 * Anything Brit &mdash; ... *generic "I am a Yank" quote here*

I will be bringing up a new section about the Arab Spring soon. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 02:29, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Lol, well, I am a Yank too, I just dabble into international politics. And I've been asking about Britain because I'm wanting to start up the NU page for the UK. And thanks for the clarifications, especially on Afghanistan because that confused me dearly xP. Well, good luck, and take as much time as needed. ALibertarianModerate95 (talk) 12:37, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Nuke's got it for Afghanistan. Add to that that the government is not Pashtun, and is composed of all of those that later opposed the radical Islam that was in control of the Southern resistance at the time. It's got nothing to do with conservatives, and everything to do with the radicals.

Massod would not hold a seat in Parliament. Being a minister does not mean you are in that body, necessarily. He'd be too busy to sit in any Parliament.

Bhutto was among those who supported the concept of a Afghani government attached to Pakistan. With the Pashtuni government, they have that. As for how they influence it, it's a question of money, fuel, supplies, and arms.

In Egypt, there are only two political groups with any sort of organization at the start of the elections there - the Brotherhood, and Hosni Mubarak's party. Add to that the charitable good-will that they've built up over the years - makes the Salvation Army look bad in comparison. That's why the Brotherhood did so well. And nothing here would change that one.

We saw with the otl elections that a really large number of Egyptians can be called "swing voters." And the biggest criticism against Shafiq was his status in the previous regime - which doesn't apply to Sabahi. Really, reversing the numbers from otl against Morsi is a very conservative guess on my part.

The voter base in Egypt, while Muslim, can't really be called "Islamist." It's much more so anti-Mubarak than anything - and that meant, otl, pro-Morsi. Again, you can see this in how the voting changed over time.

I suggested Rendell for the lower half of the ticket, not the upper - as in for the VP slot. He wasn't even on the list for 2016. Hit the nail on the head for Huckabee, as to why he'd lose. But as the sitting VP, he'd be almost without question be the candidate. That's how it tends to work. That he "riles" up the base only adds to it. Can't even say the lower half of that ticket would be a moderate.

Blair seemed to have lost interest in the job, and his wife wasn't actually happy with him having the role anyways - nothing to do with Iraq, that one, so he definitely would not be the PM now. Bet on him leaving in about the same timeframe as otl.

Given the USSR cooperating in Cyrenaica, makes perfect sense for them to do it in Syria too.

Milbrand stated many times that he held no interest in the job. Brown would be the successor as Labour leader to Blair. And I'd guess he still loses to Cameron. Iraq was far from the only reason why they lost otl.

Lordganon (talk) 05:42, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Well, Bhutto, I found out through looking up "Afghanistan in 1991", but yea, I believe that with Pakistan's major influence and Bhutto around, Pashtunistan is more or less another arm for the country.

As for Afghanistan, I actually found out (this is OTL) that not only there was a Moscow-backed plan for a transitional government to replace Najibullah with Prime Minister Fazal Haq Khaliqyar, but Najibullah stated in September of '91 a five-point peace plan to the mujhadeen that included the statement that he would step down and make way for a transitional unity government (from an intra-Afhani dialogue group) that would make the calls for a new constitution, oversee elections by mandate, and compose members of the old regime, the guerillas and the pro-pakistani members. Add that with Zahir Shah returning (but pressured by the U.S. to shut up), with the Union having an upper hand, I'd expect a bit of both added with Zahir involved in this new government to work. Not my stance as to dictating how it should be, but given the otl history, I'd believe something like that would work in order to still comply with history.

Thanks to that, I just learned something new. And, I agree on Brown, he was a klutz from the start. So, UK largely remains unchanged.

As for Egypt, I understand that MB's large organization would give them an upper leg in the parliamentary elections, but just because it is still quite early for me and I am just waking up, does that mean that Morsi would still gain the Presidency ATL or Sabahi takes the gain still? My statement about Egypt was originally to state that with the anti-Mubarak vote between Morsi and Sabahi, it'd be a closer race than otl but Sabahi would win (given my understanding of what you had said), just with a smaller margin of votes.

As for Syria, where would the new state be (let alone it's name)?

ALibertarianModerate95 (talk) 13:30, July 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * I am well aware with Najibullah's peace offer. In fact, I considered using it. The main problem with the plan is that no one was biting it other than Kabul and Moscow (not to mention a big thumbs up from New Delhi). Pakistan was not interested in having any type of continued Soviet-backed government next door (India was bad enough), and having the Prime Minister take control was just as bad as Najibullah for them. The US also didn't bite, due in great part to them hoping that Kabul would still fall (payback for the Fall of Saigon). With both Pakistan and the US not backing it, the Mujaheddin would also not bite. While Massoud wanted peace, it probably would have taken years before he might have agreed to it. This is why I gave up on that idea, which lead me to the idea of Shah returning.


 * As for Syria, this would be an interesting place to look at. Being me (and the growing distaste of the Arab communities not liking Alawite rule), I am thinking of a potential "Syrian Federation" (with states based off of the former ). I also (while not proposing it [just wanted to get an opinion]) thought of a potential Syrian unification with Mesopotamia (since the idea of a Syria-Iraq union has been proposed by the former kingdoms and the Ba'athists). Since I am on the topic of unification (last one, I promise), what of a Lebanon-Syria(-Iraq) unification as a federation? No more ideas, but I would appreciate comments. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:51, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying about Egypt is that Sabahi would win. The Brotherhood got their results in the parliamentary election through being the only real organized party. After that, their inaction/actions cost them. Simply put, once they got some part of the reins of power they had no idea what to do with it - something that wouldn't change here. As for the election itself, what I've saying is that at a minimum, Sabahi will get Morsi's otl numbers. More likely, however, is that he gets more, as he has no stigma against him from the old regime, unlike Shafiq, which means far less people will get "put off" of voting for him.

Nuke's got it with regards to that peace agreement. While Massoud may be eventually agreeable to the concept, it will not happen right away.

Unlike Libya, there's no real divisions inside of Syria to establish a split. No way at all that Lebanon would join such a thing - only a third of the people there would even remotely agree to the concept. And, on that note, I have to say that an Iraq-Syria union wouldn't happen, either. There is very much a split there that won't agree to it.

Now, a "Syrian Federation" would likely be a good way to go. Each group in the fighting would have parts, and it'd a peace that they could all agree too, most likely. Call it like the current arrangement in otl Zimbabwe on many levels.

Lordganon (talk) 07:01, July 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, can't hurt me for trying. At leas the federation idea is okay. Not too sure how it would come out, though (especially if [like Libya]), Assad remains in power (just not able to use his army to attack people). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:25, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Arab Spring and Middle East
Since the Arab Spring is becoming the main topic, as well as me wanting to bring many aspects to rest, I have decided to start a new thread. Here are the main points:




 * Libya &mdash; To prevent the western powers from having their way in Libya (as was OTL), the USSR votes in favor of the measure to have a no-fly zone over Libya (which Russia abstained from OTL). Whether other nations (primarily Germany and India) would follow the USSR in voting for the measure I will leave for discussion. In doing so, the USSR (and maybe the others voting in favor) becomes part of the coalition to prevent Gaddafi using his armed forces to attack protesters. With this, the western powers would be in check when thinking about using this power to cripple Gaddafi, leading to the Civil War becoming a stalemate (with the rebels holding onto Benghazi and the eastern-half of Libya, and Gaddafi still controlling the west). A ceasefire would be finalized around the end of 2011, which is still in affect. With Tripoli nowhere in site for the rebels, the NTC would reorganize themselves into a Cyrenaican separatist movement, and declaring independence in March 2012. The countries which recognized the NTC would recognize the independence of Cyrenaica, but it is still unrecognized internationally. I would also add, I would like to think that there are movements to prevent the collapse of a united Libya. Maybe (as with OTL) the idea of a Libyan Federation is being brought up. I would also like to think that the USSR might try to have Gaddafi leave the government, or allow a transition government (where he is a part of it) which will hopefully lead to a new democratic government in Libya. Thoughts?


 * Syria &mdash; With Libya being a success, the USSR would also favor actions against Syria. As to how Syria looks today, I can't say for sure (aside from no attacks on people). Current solutions favor a federation within Syria (as mentioned in the previous thread).


 * Others &mdash; Not much would be different in the Arab World from OTL. Egypt is currently being a variable (in the case of leadership). Aside from there being (most likely) no protests in Mesopotamia and South Yemen, I can't see anything else.


 * Arab Union? &mdash; I have been considering what the events of the Arab Spring would have towards Pan-Arabism (mostly relating to OTL and not TTL). However, given the fact that some nations (Mesopotamia and South Yemen) are very different from OTL, I would like to suggest the possibility of an Arab Union being in the future. Aside from a common language (which is usually the only reason an Arab League exists), unity may come as a means to prevent continued dictatorships and promote democracy. Just a thought, and this idea would be a long way away, but I would appreciate any comments on this idea.

That's it for now. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:43, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but I really doubt an Arab Union can be possible due to all the conflicts and stuff. RandomWriterGuy (talk) 02:56, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

The USSR going along with a Libya resolution would mean more nations supporting, and thus voting, for it.

No way the east goes for a federation. Not only will they not want anything to do with that dictator, they never wanted to be unified all that badly in the first place. And, bet on the King getting invited back - the man is really popular there.

Really doubt that the Soviets could pressure him to get out, or democratize at all.

Syria, bet on a federation of two parts of the country, one under the rebels and the other under a successor to the dictator. Overall power-sharing concept would be similar to the one currently in use in Zimbabwe. Split of ministries, power, etc., and being able to run the show in their own areas of control.

Would be little difference anywhere else in the Middle East.

No way an Arab Union is possible. The concept is similar to a proposal for all English-speaking nations to unify, realistically. Besides, the movement has lost steam otl from the events in question.

Lordganon (talk) 06:39, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

In my view, the only way Gaddafi would be out of the position is by some sort of coup from within the group. Besides, even if Gaddafi went out of power, the chance of the Cyrenaican government deciding to reunite into a federation is slim to none and Gaddafi is too unwilling to lose his control. Now, as for the stalemate in Libya, you do have the eastern forces taking hold of Cyrenaica, but you also have NTC forces west of Tripoli just sitting there. My theory is that maybe they can instigate a coup with other Jamahiriya members and implement a diffeerent leader (more moderate than Gaddafi and slightly more reformist) so that while the Jamahiriya stays, it isn't under some autocratic rule simply by one guy.

And, agreed, El Senussi would probably be designated as King by the General National Congress, regardless of elections (which I doubt would be different than OTL). So, it's essentially a Westminster-styled government.

As for Syria, who would replace Assad in 2014? You do have the Vice Presidents (Najah al-Attar [first female VP; former Culture Minister under Bashar's father] and Farouk al-Sharaa [former Foreign Affairs Minister under both Assads and rose in the ranks of the Ba'ath Party]) but who would seem like a viable candidate to take over?

[[User:ALibertarianModerate95|ALibertarianModerate95 (talk) 02:00, July 19, 2012 (UTC)]]

Forces west of there would be protected under the terms given by the UN - likely Gaddafi is eventually disposed of by someone in his government and they work out an arrangement with those rebels.

Considering the support held in the east by the King, with a split he'd be declared as such within a few weeks of the resolution.

Take Assad and his brother Maher - head of the best troops, and who would take charge if he was removed - out of the picture, and it will still likely be a member of their family on top. Outside chance of Farouk al-Sharaa taking the role of the one half of the "Federation," depending on how things go. No way it falls on Najah al-Attar. As for the leader of the other half, I'd make a guess at it being Abdul Halim Khaddam.

Lordganon (talk) 03:31, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and with that, we could see the Libyan civil war as largely over, but like the Korean War, it's still technically at war with some low-scale attacks. Now, the question is, who would be that key member? Abdessalam Jalloud was a member of the former Revolutionary Command Council and a key member in Libya, but became Gaddafi's enemy by 1993 after several disagreements, and I think that the tribes would have a conflict of control, but Jalloud rises for the Magariha tribe. Then there is Abu-Bakr Yunis Jabr, Gaddafi's right-hand man and person who was with Gaddafi when they both died Otl, he could keep stability in the regime. I mean, there are many, but I'd consider looking at the members of the RCC.

So, what would be a good name? State of Cyrenaica/Kingdom of Cyrenaica/other? Also, my bet with the General National Congress elections would be pretty much the same as otl because while the MB is the most organized party, Jibril would gain a majority beyond politics or religion because most people saw Jibril as a recognizable figure during the civil war.

Khaddam is a good bet LG, I can understand considering he was the transitional President after Hafez's death, and while he was part of the Assad regime, he soon became a well-known dissident member (as well as Rifat) As for the other side...you decide! xD

ALibertarianModerate95 (talk) 02:00, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Nuke's timeline, not mine. Most I can claim is "principal adviser" or some such thing, and I wouldn't even do that. Any choices are solely up to Nuke.

Abu-Bakr Yunis Jabr would not have done it. And Abdessalam Jalloud would not have had the ability by then. The concept of it being something skin to Korea may be a good comparison.

Whoever overthrew him would be someone who defected otl from inside of his regime. Best guess, Baghdadi Mahmudi, or one of his sons, likely Mutassim Gaddafi if that were the case.

Either "Kingdom" or "Emirate" of Cyrenaica. Jibril probably still as PM, like otl.

A member of Assad's family would be on top in Damascus, odds are.

Lordganon (talk) 02:44, July 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah... my timeline. But I can understand, I do like LG's support and wisdom, that it is understandable. But now my words:


 * I like the idea of a potential coup within Tripoli. No promises, but anyone who would stabilize Tripolitania (and Fezzan I would hope) and allow transition into a (maybe) Soviet-backed democracy.


 * I have still not been convinced on reestablishing the monarchy in Cyrenaica (call me a king-hating American). If anybody can show me a link that proves he is really wanted in Cyrenaica alone, that I will be able to go from there. On a side note, "Emirate of Cyrenaica." That was, and I love the name "emirate" (reminds me of "governorate," and my love for the lovable UAE).


 * I have no idea what you two are talking about in regards to Syria. When I meant "federation," I was referring to a federation of four states/republics (two Arab, one Alawite, one Druze). Aside from Zimbabwe (which I know nothing about), is there any other comparison to what this "two sided 'federation'" was successfully done? Otherwise, I am sticking to my original proposal. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:24, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Fezzan has a really small population when compared to the other two. And given its position in the west, far more likely it goes with Tripoli.

Really, before the rebels broke though otl, there was talk of a coup possibility in Tripoli. If it went on longer in a "draw" then otl with the people suffering in the west, odds are pretty good one happens.

Emirate is probably more likely.

If you google about a potential restoration, you'll find a lot on the matter of a restoration of the monarchy. Support for the institution is particularly high in the east, where the "Sneussi" religious order, of which the royal claimant is the head, is very popular, as is the tribe of the royals. They are very much "of the people" there, if that makes sense. Heck, expect a referendum on the matter otl, even. In Cyrenica, they are very loyal to the king - polls have that area running somewhere in the area of 80% wanting a restoration. Add to that that the monarchical symbols - flag, anthem, coat of arms, etc. - from before the "republic" was put into place are the "new" symbols of the nation. Best info I can find on the matter is here but as I said, google will get you a ton of info on the subject.

I'd argue that Bosnia would also be a similar example to the Zimbabwe situation, just further along and based on ethnic rather than political lines.

Guessing that the basis for your idea is the French colony, I honestly have to say it's not really workable. No one would really want to give the Alawi something like that, given Assad's domination of the Syrian state, and the stigma against the Druze would run them in a similar direction.

The French actually tried to get the Arabs to separate into two separate nations, playing on rivalries between Aleppo and Damascus. Failed then, partially because nationalism in the region was just too strong. They've had more than a half century of being unified now - I really have to doubt that they'd go for it. After all, unlike Libya, which is a rather artificial state, Syria's been unified to some degree for a very long time - very little regionalism is present.

In effect, it'd be a sort of "power-sharing" agreement. Usually, this is more for multi-ethnic societies. Syria is one, somewhat, but other a touch marginally. You can find more about it here, as a start.

Lordganon (talk) 06:32, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I woud like to apologize Nuke, but thanks for understanding. Now, with the Libyan-Cyrenaican issue in more of a Korean War-ish conflict, Egypt with a Nasserist President, and the Emirate of Cyrenaica resurrecting (no offense Nuke, but as much of an American as I am, the Senussi Dynasty is coming back, Westminster-style albeit), here are some others:

Now, in the case of the Libya coup, my belief is that only somebody with both political experience as well as foreign policy credientals could probably work on making some sort of pro-Soviet democracy. Since Mutassim was recognized as the only diplomat other than his dad when he became a National Security Advisor, and since Mahmudi has been the Prime Minister for five or six years, it's safe to assume that these two are the most likely to not only defect, but overthrow. My belief is that they would work together to overthrow Muammar not only to save the regime (since Gaddafi's footing and choices practically had him killing the Jamahiriya in otl) but keeping the state alive with minor conflicts, keeping to a stalemate until the UN intervenes (like with Yemen in TTL) and ends it. Add to Mutassim and Baghdaadi in power, they would be more willing to accept a new government system while keeping the loyalists...well, loyal.

Now, I am confused about Sudan. Last time I checked about Sudan, it referenced to the War in Sudan (otl Afghanistan War) about how Turabai was President and was reluctant of ousting bin Laden, leading to him losing power, but that seems to have changed. So, what would the new Sudanese government be that would cause the people to have a major protest movement?

ALibertarianModerate95 (talk) 20:00, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Looking more into it, Mutassim would likely be the one to overthrow his father - while he may have had assistance from others, he'd actually tried it before. Mahmudi would likely have little to no involvement.

Virtually the whole Arab World has had protests otl - there is little to no reason why it wouldn't be the case atl too. Thus, the protests in Sudan happen. Call it just the movement spreading in general. Not like the Sudanese would be happy with the situation there, after all.

Lordganon (talk) 00:03, July 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delayed response, my mind has been focused elsewhere lately.


 * Allow me to clarify, it isn't that I am against the restoration of Libya's king, but that I find it very confusing to personally comprehend. I don't understand monarchies and it is easy enough for me to ignore them (in fact, my lack of interest in monarchies is making me question my adoption of 13 Fallen Stars [side note]). The second reason I am confused is that, while I can easily find sites advocating and supporting the restoration of the monarchy, all of them are from 2011. Any recently posted pages on this are just copies of what has already been said. So I assumed that this was just a hype, which ended (OTL) with the fall of Gaddafi, and the lack of interest in Tripoli in comparison to Benghazi. But I guess it can be said that with Tripoli out of the picture, the monarchy would gain a HUGE boost from OTL's situation. However, I will state that either way you put it, the Emirate of Cyrenaica would not exist at the present. At the earliest, when Tripoli recognizes the independence of Cyrenaica (which can be anywhere from now to 2015 at the latest [guesstimating]).


 * As for the coup idea, I am getting more and more interested. I will have to do some reading on these guys, but I could see promises here. My only question would be whether this coup would kill or simply send Gaddafi into exile. If the later... who would want him (Chavez maybe)?


 * When would this coup most likely happen? Around the same time (OTL) that Tripoli was captured? Earlier, later? Considering when it happens, I could see how the connection between the rebels in Cyrenaica and the new government in Tripoli would make predicting the future easier in the long run. Forgive me for bringing it up (feel free to slap me), what are the chances of the remaining provinces of Libya (Tripolitania and Fezzan) being a federation in this potentially Soviet-backed nation?


 * Forgive me for the Sudan idea. I chose the color from OTL Iraq because I would assume that Sudan would be similar (what with having an American-propped government in place). Plus I remember reading that the situation in Sudan may be flaring up (OTL). But again, WIP map that is only to get a rough idea for this forum. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 02:32, July 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Quick update, I just read the "" page, and the last paragraph (and this link) say is the leader of the autonomous Cyrenaica. Does this mean he will be king, or ? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 02:39, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Nuke, I think that the naming of Ahmed al-Senussi to the head of that committee and their continued use of the emblems speaks for itself in a lot of ways. The east still loves the Senussi's - something that without much influence from the western part of Libya would only increase. It's not just hype.

But I have to say, Tripoli recognizing the independence of Cyrenaica would have no effect on when they invite the heir to return. They'd do it as soon as peace of some sort is instituted.

Gaddafi's fate depends on who overthrows him. If it is his son, then he'd be exiled - Venezuela sounds like a good destination - but if it is someone else, he likely gets killed.

As I've said, his son would be the likely candidate - especially if the Soviets back the coup, which seems reasonable enough. He did try it before, after all.

By my guess, it would be at some point after Tripoli fell otl.

Fezzan and Tripolitania would be one state, though a federal unit is likely.

Mohammed would be the candidate. His father was the last Crown Prince, his father named him to that role, and he is far closer related to the last King than Ahmed, and especially Idris, the other claimant.

When it says that Ahmed was a great-nephew of the last king, it neglects to include that that was through the King's marriage - he is the son of the late queen's brother (though he is still a grandson of the head of the Senussi order before the King), and doesn't claim the title either. But I wouldn't be shocked if Ahmed was the Prime Minister.

And, you may well notice that Idris has some "odd" beliefs on the matter - know that not only is he a bit off, but his beliefs on why he is the rightful heir to the crown are incorrect.

Lordganon (talk) 05:09, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay, but it wasn't wasted. I like how Libya is coming out here. So let's lay out the timeline. The POD would be the USSR voting in favor of, creating a no-fly zone over Libya. The USSR would do so because this USSR would not support Gaddafi using his might to attack civilians. The catch would be the USSR becoming part of the coalition, which would benefit Libya because the USSR would not allow NATO to become involved, nor tolerate the the western powers going beyond a no-fly zone. From what I know, I would say that Germany and India would back the USSR in the vote. I can even see Germany becoming part of the coalition and siding with the Soviets on only enforcing a NFZ (every time I say "no-fly zone", you can hit me), not sure if India would become part of which. As for Brazil and China, I can't 100% say whether they would abstain (as OTL) or vote in favor (my guess is Brazil would be more likely to vote in favor than China [which I have no idea]).

Anyway, the [German-]Soviet support would secure Gaddafi to remain in Tripoli, and would prevent major western attacks on his military. Despite a stronger Gaddafi (than OTL), his air force would be out of the picture, which would give more power to his army (I believe the navy may be blocked, not too sure). By the end of 2011, the conflict turns into a stalemate, with both sides never loosing or gaining ground, with the rebels holding onto the Cyrenaican regions. Also, I am not a military expert, so forgive me if I am off.

Despite Gaddafi remaining in power, he control is beginning to wain. Many believe he is ruining the country (as made fact just months prior by attacking his own people). With him not being killed anytime soon (ATL), some within his inner circle begin to plot against him. As for who, I am looking more and more into Saif al-Islam (Gaddafi's second son). If not the head of this coup, than maybe someone to be head of a transition government. But doing more reading, Mutassim may be okay to lead the coup (he did it before). I am completely new to Gaddafi's children, so forgive me. Either way, with one of his children leading this coup, I would like to think it would be bloodless. Later, Gaddafi would be exiled, with Hugo Chavez welcoming to live in Venezuela.

With (I still like Saif al-Islam) leading a new transition government in Tripoli, a ceasefire would finally be made. Tripoli (at the time) would continue to look towards solutions to retain a united Libya, even proposing a federation (which eventually keeps Fezzan loyal to Tripoli), but Cyrenaicans continue to loose interest in unity, especially if pro-Gaddafi leaders remain in Tripoli. By March 2012, the NTC officially reforms from the Libyan Republic into the Republic of Cyrenaica, declaring themselves an independent country. Like OTL's Cyrenaica, with Ahmed al-Senussi declared the leader. It becomes clear that the Cyrenaicans don't intend to remain a republic, and hoping to reestablish the Emirate (with will have Mohammed as Emir/King). Tripoli currently does not recognize this, but given that Gaddafi is gone, I think it may be more likely that Tripoli would eventually accept this (maybe within a year).

As for the future, Libya would become a Soviet-styled democratic federation between Tripolitania and Fezzan. As for who would lead this new Libya? (you know my support). Cyrenaica will eventually become an Emirate, with a Westminster-styled government. Also a question about Saudi Arabia. In OTL, SA is attempting to establish the Gulf Council into an EU-like entity (which seems to have support in Bahrain). Saudi Arabia also suggested expanding the Council to invite all Arab monarchies (Jordan and Morocco). Would Cyrenaica be invited. Again, just a question (no ideas in mind). That's all I have for now. Am I close, or way off? Thoughts? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:23, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

NATO would still be involved. It's not like other powers didn't move in to help from outside of the organization otl. They would not, however, be given command like in otl - either someone from a "neutral" nation - read: Sweden - or a joint command by NATO and the USSR would happen.

The USSR going along with it would have little to no bearing on those other powers supporting it. Expect similar results to otl.

Really, until they starting openly arming the rebels and inserting the forces otl were following the resolution. Remember, it called for them to do everything to protect civilians, too - which still justifies the destruction of Libyan armor. Soviet involvement would prevent NATO from stretching the limits on what they could do like in otl.

Without this "extension," it becomes a stalemate. Libyan troops can't defeat the rebels, but the rebels lack the ability to "win."

I really have to say it'd be Mutassim that leads the coup. Unlike his brother, his internal credibility was reasonable, and he does seem to have been reasonably moderate.

Fezzan would be loyal irregardless of the federation bit.

Yes, Mohammad as Emir, and Ahmed as the PM.

I really think that Tripoli would accept it right away, myself. Simple solution, and it gets rid of a "rebel" problem.

Mutassim would lead the state, though the democratic federation would be a bit too far. Bet more on somewhere between that and the pre-reform USSR as to how democratic - still an improvement, mind. Just a touch more autocratic than otl Russia, give or take.

Cyrenaica would be included with the other two monarchies. Though don't read too much into the goals of the Saudis - the other states really don't care for the "EU" aspect of things much.

Lordganon (talk) 05:42, August 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * More or less, that is exactly what I had in mind (told you I wasn't good at wording this). I will have to do more reading on Mutassim. So Libya would be more or less like OTL Russia. So there is a feeling of democracy, but dominantly still dominated by one man. Not what I had in mind, but better than nothing. Also, are you for or against a federation. Either way, I would like to suggest that Libya's official name be changed. My support would go for the "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya," or if "Jamahiriya" seems to have become a dead concept (can't see why since a Gaddafi is still in power), than the "Libyan Arab Republic" (the original name used by Gaddafi's first government).


 * You think Tripoli would recognize Cyrenaica earlier? Hm... didn't think it was that easy. Nothing against it, but I would still believe it would have been a while after Cyrenaica's declaration of independence in March 2012. Maybe by today, but definitely by the end of the year. Speaking of Cyrenaica, since they are committed to reinstalling the monarchy, how soon would you expect the Senussis to return, and how soon would the republic be replaced by a monarchy. As for the Saudis, it's not because I believe it to be true or necessary, it is just a cartographical curiosity for me. Plus I would like to see how friendly the other Arab nations would be towards Cyrenaica's independence. Speaking of which, how soon would the nations who supported the NTC to reestablish relations with Tripoli? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:02, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, like otl Russia, just a touch more away from democracy. Something like dissent being a little more blocked in papers.

A federation in Libya is unlikely - Tripolitania just has too much of a population advantage. Explains a lot of the issues otl, matter of fact. But Fezzan just doesn't have the ability to gain such a position.

What is likely, however, would be the formation of a single governorate/district for the area.

Sounds like a good idea for a name.

Call it the Libyans wanting to look better. Either way, it does them no good to not recognize the loss of Cyrenaica. When you're already in massive trouble with the world, and have a shaky new regime.... you don't want to rock the boat by pissing people off. Declaring what the people already know would have little effect on their domestic support, in my opinion. Only benefits them to do it right away.

Senussis would be named the Emirs within a few hours, I'd imagine - especially if the one is in charge of the committee like otl. Expect the coronation a week or two later.

By and large, the Arab nations would support it. Syria is the only one that would have problems with it, I think. Maybe the Palestinians too.

Expect recognition by those that recognized the NTC within hours - if not minutes. They'd have been helping it undertake the action, after all.

Lordganon (talk) 03:27, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

So, for Libya, what I am seeing is that it will be like otl Russia with Mutassim still seen as the utmost leader (albeit, while the position may be limited) with influence over the new government (Mahmudi leading as PM and pro-government party, perhaps?). Now, would the stalemate in the war cause the elections (otl) for the General National Congress be nonexistent (having the NTC transfer control to Senussi)? Or would the GNC be available and decide on reinstituting the monarchy and coronating Senussi as Emir?

Also, why in the hell would Ahmed be considered PM? I can understand black support for the monarchy, but you place the family in absolute control and after a decade or two, Cyrenaica reunites back with Gaddafi (if not revolt into a gov't worse than Gaddafi). Frankly, the GNC in power and making Emir Senussi a figurehead would balance out the measures of the U.S. and the West, while keeping its people happy, and promising relations with Moscow. That, and Jibril would be the most recognizable figure for Cyrenaicans, giving Washington and Moscow a benefit for the both of them (considering his contact with the coalition). If I am wrong, please correct me.

ALibertarianModerate95 (talk) 03:22, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Most of the NTC would leave, in my opinion - power would devolve in all likelihood on a council like the one recently declared in Cyrenaica. They would then declare him Emir. Elections for a GNC-type body would still happen.

A bit more power centered on the leader in the new Libyan state than in otl Russia would be likely.

Absolute control? What the hell are you talking about?

Ahmed would be named Prime Minister - he is the head of the regional council that was declared otl, remember? - and then elected to the role.

The NTC has a lot of exiles from the other two regions of Libya in it. While elements of the NTC would be the provisional government of Cyrenaica, it would not be.

Neither Moscow or Washington would care in the way you imply.

Mahmoud Jibril is not Cyrenaican. Not in the least. Nor would he be "recognizable."

Overall, you are seriously underestimating the support they have in the area, and them in general. Very, very, wrong.

Lordganon (talk) 05:41, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

On absolute control, I was assuming that Ahmed would consider keeping power for the King because of the family (even if he's in it by marriage), making Mohammed El Senussi a very powerful leader rather than a major figure in Cyrenaica and an influential figure, but not the political leader. Now, I may have been wrong, and yes I do remember that report on the CTC back in March. That I apologize.

So it sounds like that, looking at the page, Mutassim would be the President and the new Libya will be a presidential republic with the new pro-Gaddafi party (while Gaddafi is independent/party leader). Beyond that, I still say that Mahmudi would prove beneficial to Mutassim for the new Libya. Now, if the 70-year old Muammar is in asylum in Venezuela, would the family join or would some stay with Mutassim?

Now, diverting from Libya-Cyrenaica, this is for Nuke: Considering that the Yemeni government has been reformed by the Gulf Co-operation Council and Mohammed Basindawa taking a bigger footing in the new unity government, would South Yemen (under President al-Attas) consider re-opening relations with its northern neighbor with Prime Minister Basindawa? Or would the wounds on the two sides still be too great?

ALibertarianModerate95 (talk) 14:08, August 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your question. Did the Gulf Council lead to the Yemeni Revolution, because I haven't heard of that. Secondly, I already have a lineup for the of South Yemen, and Attas is not in it. If this is going to be your way of putting words in my mouth, I will not be tolerating it at all.

Oh no, sorry. I picked the wrong name (I don't know why, though).
 * But from what I can make of this question, yes... kinda. After South Yemen gains enough support internationally, it would regain UN membership with ease. North Yemen (under ) would probably not recognize this (or would by far not support it), which will strain relations until he is gone (not to mention closer ties with the US). After he is gone, I would like to assume that the North would like to reopen good relations with the South. As for whether (who was born in Aden) is elected President of North Yemen, I couldn't say. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:05, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

The GCC was involved in the process of the revolution (considering that Abdullah and Saleh, while against each other, are U.S. allies). In fact, Saleh went to S.A. for treatment of gunshot wounds while the revolution was going on OTL and the GCC, which had been trying to get Yemen into the group, had been involved in brokering a transition deal for Yemen's oposition for a unity government, but Saleh refused relinquishing power until he caved on 22 November. So, no, the Saudis did not lead the revolution. Though, as a neighbor, they were heavily involved in a transition deal.

So, my question was since the state is now more or less led by Prime Minister Basindawa (as a part of the GCC deal), would relations between the North and South reopen? Now, I know.

As for al-Hadi, he broke free from the South Yemeni in 1986 and fled to Sana'a. I don't understand why he would go back since he defected for the North. However, I am not quite sure about who would be the new President then. Though, considering how saleh became President, I'd bet that it is someone from the army (Defense Minster and Brigader General Muhammad Nasir Ahmad Ali is on that list).

ALibertarianModerate95 (talk) 17:27, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Mahmudi would have been involved in whatever move that Mutassim made in Tripoli.

Most of the family would have stayed. After all, why would they want to move out of their homes?

Lordganon (talk) 01:36, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering which of them have their support for their father more, I'd expect some to leave in the case of Mutassim and the new Libyan government offering them exile instead of handing them over to the ICC (like Gaddafi and his wife, of course). I do believe that the family members (Ayesha and Saif al-Islam, most notably) being involved in the new Libyan Jamahiriya (under President Mutassim, of course), but as for the government, I'd kinda see Mutassim as President and as the Chairman of the Coup government (similar to the Revolutionary Command Council) and by elections, it takes that organization of power (similar with Putin in otl russia) with the members in the new government.

Now, to divert from the Arab Spring and all that, I wanted to ask anyone if they have heard of two coup attempts (one in the early 1990s; the other in 1995) in North Korea. Also, what influence would Moscow try to exert over the Pyongyang regime?

ALibertarianModerate95 (talk) 16:03, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

I really doubt that they would join him. They'd be assured a life of power and privilege in Libya, not so much elsewhere.

Yes, those ones I've heard of - glad you're not talking about the "fake" one the pilot reported about in that decade - but they are really rather irrelevant. There is no way they work. That we know about them at all is a pretty good indication of how much the Kims' knew about them far in advance.

Moscow would not be able to influence them more than in otl. Been over this before on here - have a peek at "archive 2" at the top of the page.

Lordganon (talk) 03:01, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Well, with North Korea out of the way, I must go back to Libya for a certain issue: Mutassim v. the Brothers. Now, I understand the coup against his father in 2000-2001 may lead to a more moderate Mutassim, but can you put into detail why him? Why out of everyone (even Ayesha Gaddafi, his sister) is Mutassim the supportive candidate for President of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya?

I can't wait for the next topic to come! ALibertarianModerate95 (talk) 22:03, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

Errr.... wrong decade, entirely. Try more like last year.

Mutassim is on record as having attempted a coup against his father. There is really no question that he would be the one willing to launch such an operation.

Lordganon (talk) 05:37, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Somalia & Other
Okay, recently, there was a presidential election in Somalia with Social Democrat as the winner.

This got me thinking: What would the Somali government leadership be like to benefit the USSR?

~ALM

...Somalia is/was controlled by radical Islamist groups atl. And the "election" otl means very little, quite frankly.

The leadership installed is unlikely to have more authority that the otl claims to have. Wouldn't be Social Democrats of any stripe, either - moderate Islamist, at best. No net benefit to the USSR.

Lordganon (talk) 22:13, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect, what is the worth of Somalia if the USSR can't have the state be an ally for the state? ALibertarianModerate95 (talk) 00:06, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Saying "with all due respect" does nothing of the sort. Rather insulting, quite frankly.

The worth? How does it not being a terrorist haven sound?

Lordganon (talk)


 * Before a fight breaks out, I better step it. Forgive me if I am not into detail, my mind is on New Netherland at the moment. Lol. So from what I can understand from LG's suggestion, Somalia would go more towards Islamism and away from a pro-Soviet ally. Well given that the USSR and Ethiopia would probably still be occupying the country by today, I guess there would be more hostility towards the social democratic views of those two. But in the end, I haven't even gotten around to understanding Somalia in ATL (aside from an invasion and an independent Somaliland). And for AL, I would have to say there is a difference between an ally and an occupation. Don't know about you, but I don't believe I would hear any friendly remarks about America from Afghans and Iraqis. Not much else I can say, I just regret that I am not focused here right now to give a better discussion. Also (not to be rude), but what did you mean to say when you wrote "No net benefit to the USSR"? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 03:54, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

More or less, Nuke. Moderate Islamism is far more realistic here than a pro-USSR government would be. There's a reason why it is so full of radicals otl.

What I was meaning by that statement, Nuke, was that the government would not end up being aligned to them at all, and the whole experience would be a drain on their resources. A needed one, but a drain nevertheless.

Lordganon (talk) 04:02, September 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * So the USSR would be suffering the same problems as the US OTL. Sounds about right, not that I really expected anything different. Lol. But like you said before, I believe I would rather have a Somalia annoying Soviet finances than a Somalia full of terrorists. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:59, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. Lordganon (talk) 03:39, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

What I was stating at it was the fact that the government would rely on the USSR. Now, the Afghans and Iraqis may savor hatred towards us for occupation, and I would agree that the US government should get our asses out of them, but that is for another area of debate. Now, as much as they may hate us, their governments rely on the USA (Karzai relies on us because w/o him, he'd end up like Najibullah otl; Nouri al-Maliki relies on us because if the Iraq War didn't happen, the Shi'ites would have a harder time removing Hussein otl).

I was saying that if this invasion happened, and there was no Somali government that is either supportive or reliant on the USSR, then why the hell did Moscow decide to invade Somalia in the first place? Well, I would expect to have the answer be to have Somaliland be the African state that is supportive/reliant on the USSR, along with Ethiopia. Now, I can see this as the OTL variant of how Afghanistan is to the US, and that is perfectly understandable, but how is it needed? Because it is the restart of an ally? This war actually seems to me as a backfire for Moscow because, then the government could just swing support for the US and then, with a US-backed Somalia and a Soviet-backed Somaliland....ugh, it's just soo much. :P

I'm probably speaking gibberish here, but, when I look at this, it's not only a bad effect on Moscow, it has other factors, including politically. Somalia, in this state, would have caused young Soviets/Russians questioning as to why the major party in the USSR is in a losing fight that is just costing them money and lives? This war would benefit the Democratic Unity party (not so sure about the Communist Party, given that Ryzhkov sent the troops in) with the general election (2014) and presidential election (2015)

ALibertarianModerate95 (talk) 17:05, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Ummm.... you vastly overstate the amount that those two governments are dependent on US support.

They invaded to remove al-Qaeda. Which they accomplished. And that was needed.

This is something akin to the US experience in Afghanistan. Not the Soviet one. It's a minor war, with relatively low casualties, and troops from other nations doing a lot of the work.

Not a "losing fight."

And the Somalia/Somaliland stuff just doesn't make any sense.

ALM, from that post, it's really obvious what your opinion of things such as this move are, and that it is clouding your judgement. You need to set all such things aside.

Lordganon (talk) 03:38, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

The reason the USSR goes into war in Somalia is because of Al-Qaeda, who would be responsible for attacks on both Ethiopia and the Soviet Union (see ). Ethiopia cooperates in the invasion (meaning it is a joint venture). Somaliland's independence would be due to timing, the fact that this region supported and cooperated in the invasion and overthrow of the government (and maybe in response to the US' quickness to recognize Darfur and Kush after their invasion of Sudan [a la Kosovo/Abkhazia-South Ossetia]).

As for my statement about war... that is just my liberal and hippie opinions. I see our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq as bad in the long run, that doesn't mean it was worthless. Like LG said, this is comparable to the US-involvement in Afghanistan, not the Soviet one of the 1980s. The USSR's only goal in 1979 was to prop up a communist government and form the nation into a satellite (strictly strategical). The US' goal in 2001 was to destroy Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and give justice to the people responsible for 9/11 (strictly security and liberation). The Soviet's have learned their lessons from the 1980s, and would not go farther than needed (in fact, I am now tempted to work out how the Soviet citizens would respond to going into a war only after the country begins to recover after the last one). Karzai... I can't really say (don't know much about him). But comparing him to Najibullah is an understatement. Najibullah was a lacky of Moscow (especially to Gorbachev's reforms). Karzai is his own man, not doing everything the US tells him to. I may be off, but whatever. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 05:17, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

Nuke has it. Lordganon (talk) 06:46, September 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * I did? Woo-hoo! --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:07, September 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * Y'all are probably right. :PShoot, now I don't know what could be a topic to discuss on here. ALibertarianModerate95 (talk) 23:14, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

No need to worry. Topics come up all the time. But I have moved onto my other timelines, so it may be a while. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 22:01, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for parliament of the Russian Federation
Because in TTL there would be no, wouldn't n parliament still called in TTL (but including State Duma (lower chamber) anf Federal Soviet (upper chamber), as in official draft Constitution of 1991)? Seryo93 (talk) 10:57, November 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your interest in the timeline, and I welcome you. However, the constitution you are using as a reference (which btw, I had no idea existed, lol) was drafted in November 1991. In part, this proposed constitution would have been heavily influenced by Yeltsin and the growing knowledge that the USSR was no longer going to exist (i.e., post-POD). If anything, the Russian Federation (if they were to adopt a new constitution [which I believe is a given]) would have adopted one which was influenced by the New Union Treaty and the future Soviet constitution. Under this, Russia's legislature would be a Supreme Soviet, and maybe a bicameral one at that. But I would believe Russia's Supreme Soviet would be on par with the Soviet one, meaning there would most likely be no duma. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:17, November 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Another variant for chambers would be following (per Feb. 1991 draft): Federation Council (or Federation Soviet?) (both translated as Совет Федерации, Sovet Federatsii) and Council (or Soviet) of Representatives (Совет Представителей). Seryo93 (talk) 17:39, November 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * But 1991 failed coup also influenced ( or accelerated, considering governmental comission recommendations after 1990-1991 round table on state symbols of RSFSR ) return of the Russian tricolour flag, which is neverthless, because "who is to say that the tricolor wouldn't be adopted later on in a peaceful means". I think (but it is just my opinion), that same could be applied for Duma (as a lower chamber, of course, the overall parliament will be anyway Supreme Soviet). So, i'll propose both variants (with and without Duma for consideration. Seryo93 (talk) 17:44, November 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * To be fair, there is a big difference between changing a name or a flag, compared to changing how your government works, especially when it would be politicians who would make the final say towards the constitution (compared to the people who voted to rename Saint Petersburg prior to the POD, or the people looking to reestablish their identity by readopting the tricolor [with both having their opposition]). Going back to the topic, the February constitution proposal sounds more like what I see. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:11, November 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll agree. Variant without Duma would be better suit good for TTL. Seryo93 (talk) 18:19, November 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * But isn't there a possibility that Russian President would introduce a  to draft Constitution (if before passage of post-1991 Constitution of ) or propose constitutional amendment (if after such passage) to name lower chamber (but, unlike pre-1991 draft, not the whole parliament) as State Duma? Seryo93 (talk) 09:18, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

...You do realize that Yeltsin has little to no power here, right? Lordganon (talk) 09:36, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Very clearly realize (but metions his approval of elevation of  and  into full republics, so at least technically he remains President of Russia for some time (but with no things such as his  or so on, due to fact that Union is existing and posess real power (unlike OTL, where after coup Soviet bodies became more and more powerless and largely ceremonial)). But the New Union treaty has a provision, that "States comprising the Union, possess full range of political power and autonomously determine their own national-state and administrative - territorial structure as well as system of bodies of power and administration. They may delegate some of its powers to other states, participate in the treaty of which they are members", so technically it wouldn't be a problem (unless a political opposition from Communists against Duma, which is very likely, however). Actually, the very article on Russian Supreme Soviet could be (it's just my opinion) just a section (or even less) in  article, because of less political role of Superme Soviet (Russian, not Union one) after signing of the treaty. I didn't create a section in existing  article only to distinguish proposal (that has to be approved) from "ratified" article. Seryo93 (talk) 09:57, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

New page idea
Just had an idea for a new page, about the Sochi Olympics, which in this timeline would have happened in the Soviet Union (if it happens in it, that is.). <font size="2" face="Gill Sans"> DanTheRam  ☎   ✍  15:09, June 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * The topic of the Sochi games is currently off limits. I wish to work out several details involving the Olympics before this will be discussed. -- 17:45, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Okay then, I understand. --<font size="2" face="Gill Sans"> DanTheRam  ☎   ✍  16:19, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

national flag change
Hey nuke!, I was thinking, the NATIONAL flag of the Soviet Union must be changed, or at least, one of the old flags to be brought back.

If the Soviet Union becomes a democratic, multiparty state,it will have no sense to maintain a flag that almost represents only communism, I therefore suggest, as Putin is doing a great combination of soviet and imperial aspects, to reinstate the old black-gold-white flag, altough it was the flag of the Romanov House, it was also the first flag that Russia used properly as national flag, so It will be kinda nice to put that as national flag, however, the coat of arms should be only limited change.

Second, I propose that the Baltic countries and Georgia to become neutral states and have a political alliance with Russia and an economical one with the other, like legal tender of both the € and the Ruble, mutual military bases for the baltics to have more influence globally and the Russians to have bases near the west.

Also, a citizenship treaty with the Soviet Union will give automatically Soviet Citizenship to all the inhabitants of the baltics and will solutionate the problems between the Russian and Baltic communities in that states.

And now, have you ever thought how China will be in this ATL and if HK and Macau will be still British and Portuguese, part of China, part of the ROC, or independent?

PS: As the treaty in which is based this AH is real, it could become reality with all the organizations of cooperation between the ex-soviet countries, the customs union, the opened borders..., etc,, etc, and it could be used by the people as a form of democratizing Russia more than now, so I do think its more or less possible to happen what do you think?


 * As I've stated to others who have brought this up, the Soviet flag WILL NOT be changed. It's already a design change from its Cold War version, with explanations on its current meaning being.


 * Simplistically speaking, the Baltic States despise Russia. I doubt the foreign relations between the Baltic States and the USSR would be that different from OTL. Georgia, on the other hand, is a Soviet ally ATL. Unlike the Baltic States, Georgia remains close to Russia and isn't really considering EU membership. I've never heard about a citizenship treaty.


 * China and its SARs will be no different from OTL.


 * The USSR would be more democratized than OTL Russia, so I have no idea what you are talking about. -- 16:04, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

A New Capital for the USSR?
Please be aware that the primary purpose of this section is to have a fun discussion on the possibility of the Soviet Union willingly moving its capital from Moscow to somewhere else. This isn't an actual proposal (unless it turns out well) but rather a fun little thought experiment I would love to write out.

A few months ago I started this thought experiment on where (if at all) could a new, purpose-built capital be located within the Soviet Union. I personally love the idea of compromise capitals, so this topic is probably biased in many ways.

For my experiment, I took the history of, and how its location was influenced by the at the time of its founding. At the time, this center was located within (which is [mostly] where the capital was built). However, this center has gradually moved westward over the decades and is currently located within. Ironically there has been proposals to relocate the capital to this area (potentially to ), but this isn't a seriously considered proposal (but a fascinating idea, none the less).

With this, I decided to look where the center of population is (or rather was) within the Soviet Union. At the time I was unsuccessful, but was able to learn that the center of modern day Russia was in Bashkortostan in 2002, but has moved north into Udmurtia by today. Taking into account the larger populations of Central Asia and Eastern Europe, I placed the center for the USSR somewhere around the Saratov Oblast. After doing more reading, I think I may have been right with this (with the following link putting the center in Ozinki in the 1980s). While no doubt the demographics of the USSR would be very different following the POD, I don't think they'd differ that much from the 1980s to be a major issue.

So by pinpointing the center of population to within the Saratov Oblast, my mouth began to drool and it was for one reason alone and one reason alone: I knew of an interesting city within the area which could be the capita.

That city is named. Ignoring the fact that the city was named after, the city (to me at least) seems like an interesting location if the Soviets decided to move their capital. The first thing that interests me is that the city is located close to the border with Kazakhstan (while still being in Russia), which would show less Russo-centrism for the capital. Secondly, the city is located on the, thereby keeping historic ties to Muscovy and being easily accessible to the major cities within Russia.

But the main reason I've grown fascinated with Engels is because of its Volga German heritage. The city was the capital of the short-lived, which ceased to exist following. Since the Khrushchev Era, there has been attempts to re-establish the VGASSR to no avail. While I've already worked out an for them in Kazakhstan, this wouldn't do much for the old VGASSR. During my reading, I came across that despite the region having been Russified, the people and (more importantly) the regional government were supportive of having the Volga Germans return there as it would improve their local economy. This has also lead me to consider the regional aspects of moving the capital. First off, this would require major construction projects which (in turn) would create more jobs for the region (if not the nation) not just in the short run but long term.

Though Engels is a noteworthy suggestion for this discussion, an alternative could be to simply create a new capital from scratch, using the region in question as a basis. Similar to, a new capital could be constructed and showcase a new Soviet Union. Another potential positive for this is essentially to create a "new slate" for the Soviet Union as a whole. From many articles I've recently read about a potential new capital for Russia (OTL), a common critique I've come across is to compare Moscow as a historic symbol of control and oppression (dating back to the Tsardom). Moving the capital would allow the USSR to create a new image for itself and its new government.

With that being said, the only major hurdle I could see would be the willingness. I've mentioned this before (at least in my head) that moving a capital city is hard work and would take drastic measures in order to do it. Usually it's only during the country's formation or after some shock that a capital could move. This is why the capital of the US is not in St. Louis. While the reorganization of the USSR and the economic hardships of the 1980s and early 1990s could possibly fit this bill, I'm not overly sure the Soviets would be willing to abandon Moscow and the Kremlin (which have become global icons).

Like I mentioned before, this isn't a real suggestion rather a thought experiment. I would love any feedback on this topic. -- 16:26, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

Interesting concept, but not one I suspect is all that realistic.

For new countries, capitals are either compromises or already centers of political power. Examples of compromises are DC and Ottawa, and for the latter, Mexico City. Cities that are built for the purpose, like DC or Canberra, are usually done for reasons of compromise.

Other new capitals, such as Brasilia and that new one in Burma, are more for the purpose of consolidating the political power of the regime in power, and helping them establish themselves. To some degree, New Delhi is also an example of this.

Most changes of capital cities, however, are simply because the base of power changes. China is a good example of this, but you see many such cases through history all over the world.

In your USSR, none of this really applies. Same groups are still in power in a lot of ways, just under somewhat different banners, and Moscow has been the center of power for centuries, though many different governments. Even when the Tsar was in Saint Petersburg Moscow was still in many ways the center of power.

Geographic compromise relies on more than population, too - power matters a great deal as well.

Can't even really make the argument that a fresh start is needed, in the end.

As you say, ridiculously expensive, and probably no political will. Heck, I'd go as far to say that even proposing such a change on a real level would cause a lot of problems. Trying to go to somewhere like that would make it even worse - Russians would riot.

Lordganon (talk) 17:44, October 1, 2014 (UTC)

Interested In Participating
I am interested to improve this timeline79.7.177.131 12:52, October 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm honored that you're interested in participating in this timeline. However, what you have recently done was a big no no. If you still wish to continue than you will have to do the following:


 * 1) Create an account.
 * 2) Read and follow what it says on the.

-- 14:29, October 16, 2014 (UTC)

Soviet Central Television


I was looking at the Wikipedia page about Soviet Central Television and seeing it was broken up in OTL, what if it wasn't due to the New Union Treaty.

As the Soviet Union would now be democratic, the Soviet Central Television's news would become impartial (but like all news organizations, SCTV News would be ever so slightly biased in the ruling party's favor).

Soviet Central Television would drop the "Central" bit from its name to remove Communist association. It could also be renamed as Union TV.

Here is a logo of the main channel I made using Paint. I used the flag colors as the colors for the logo.

--JLUkball1234 (talk) 20:23, January 3, 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention (made my day). I love it when you guys bring up topics like this.


 * I've never heard of Soviet Central Television, but from what I've read so far I can guarantee it would still exist (no reason to disband it). Though it wouldn't have the monopoly it once had, I would still see it as a major station within the USSR.


 * I've also read that the station was beginning to reform "liberalize" their programing as part of Glasnost, to the point of being seen as a credible reference for some Western media. While it would depend on how the timeline plays out, I personally would like to see any bias becoming less and less as time goes on (maybe something akin to the by today). By far I would love to see this network become something like BBC.


 * As for the name and logo, I don't really see any reason for it to change (sorry to say). Since this company would likely remain state-owned, there would be no reason to change the name. The word central would refer mostly to the state, which is no longer communist. As for your logo, I really do like it, but it looks "too Soviet" for my liking (please don't be upset). Based on what I've read, the original symbol depicts the red star as an antenna (which would still have prevalence ATL). Not too sure the logo would be altered that much, but would still see some change over the decades (not too sure how, but I'm open). -- 06:04, January 4, 2015 (UTC)

Israel and Palestine Discussion
I've never given much thought into either Israel or Palestine within this timeline. But as of recently I've been considering what (if any) the Soviet Union's continuation could bring for the region (whether good or bad). I currently have no solid idea for the region, rather a vague bullet list of differing topics.


 * Israeli-Palestinian Peace Treaty
 * Palestinian Statehood
 * Arab-Israeli Relations
 * Israeli Membership in NATO
 * Israeli Membership in NATO

I think it would be more productive (and fun) to have a broad discussion on these topics (there hasn't been one here in quite some time). I'll go through the list in detail and state what I know and what potentials I see.

The first part is whether or not a peace treaty could be achieved ATL. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union sided with Palestine and the Arab states. Though Israeli relations would improve during the 1990s, I'm not overly sure what the USSR could bring to this discussion. Possibly putting pressure on Israel to strike a better deal? Pressuring Palestine to accept a deal?

The main reason I bring this up is because I came across the and that it was "the closest time we got to a peace deal." I've read negative comments about this topic on the alternate history forum, so I'm now hesitant to say whether this could've passed unless the USSR could've pushed it along. I'm all ears on this.

If the previous topic is a "yes" and Israel leaves Palestine, one thing I came across was that many right-wing settlers in the West Bank have threatened to establish a if Israel ceased to occupy the area. While interesting mostly on the grounds of a new state idea, I'm fairly confident that it wouldn't last. At best it'd only occupy a few settlements and would be at constant war, and an proclaimed government in exile at the least. Regardless, though this would be interesting to talk about.

Regardless of the outcome is for Israel and Palestine, I'd also like to discuss what the overall Arab-Israeli relations would be like today. This especially since the Arab World is a much different place (only made stranger following the Arab Spring). Iraq becomes a democratic Mesopotamia. Libya splits up into two "laid-back" nations. Syria becomes a "federation of rebel-controlled lands" (we'll have to discuss this in a later discussion). Egyptians elect a social democrat instead of an Islamist in 2012 (based on previous discussions). And ISIS doesn't exist (at least on the scale as OTL). Depending on the nation in question, relations appear to be (somewhat) more open to change. At the very least, the Kurds of Iraq were open to establishing relations with Israel, but whether they convince the whole nation to do so? The social democratic Egyptian President has stated his opposition to Zionism and expressed interest in renegotiating their relations with Israel.

The last topic is only due to the fact that Rudy Giuliani is President of the United States. During his campaign in 2008, he discussed the openness for Israel's membership into NATO. I kinda like this idea in theory, but clearly it will stir up tensions in the region. I could see the USSR both being okay with this since Israel isn't a vital nation for them, but also opposing this because of the Soviet presence in Latakia (then again, the city is closer to NATO Turkey than Israel). Not too sure, but I would love to discuss this. -- 03:10, March 12, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the USSR would still not have much influence. That being said, I can see deals being made to allow Jews to leave the USSR for there.

USSR being around would not make much, if any, difference with regards to Camp David.

Yeah, that "Judea" thing is a pipe dream at best.

You'd see the peace deals of otl in place, plus relations with Cyrenaica. With regards to Egypt, think of it as being like SK and the US - not happy about it, but not really doing anything about it.

Rudy saying that is more of a talking point than anything - there are several nations that you can find such statements about.

Lordganon (talk) 11:04, March 12, 2015 (UTC)

Interested in Iran
The Iran new is out of date. I have to ideas for the Iran page. 1 A iranain uprising is inspired by the arab spring. 2 Iran the Iran eccomny is in worse shape then it is in otl due to detiroing realtions with the soviet union. This cause Assembly of Experts (the people in charge of chosing and removing the sumpere)to impeach the sumper leader after he has the army crack down on protest over the resluts of the 2009 ecleton. The sumpere leader refuse to resgin sparking a consiontal crissis and maybe a civil war. -- Goldwind1 12:54, March 24, 2015


 * Glad to see you're interested in working on this timeline (always open to new faces). However, I'm not too sure about this suggestion. Bare in mind that the following comes from my limited understanding of Iran. But to simplify, your suggestions follow the scenario that "negative" relations with the Soviet Union would further push Iran towards the edge. Inspired by the Arab Spring, Iranians begin to protest the Ayatollah's control.


 * Let's start with a topic I can easily answer. I feel fairly confident that the Iranian-Soviet relations would be nowhere as close as Russia and Iran are OTL. But at the same time, they would be nowhere as devastating as what the American-Iranian relations are. If anything, I would see the USSR taking a neutral/French approach in Iranian relations, in that tensions are high but nowhere near war. It's very likely the USSR would follow with sanctions, as they would not want another nuclear power right next door. I could also see the USSR's continued good ties with Afghanistan and Mesopotamia (OTL Iraq) as adding another layer of tension (as Iran would be surrounded by the Soviets).


 * As for a revolution and/or civil war in Iran, that I'm not sure about. Unlike much of the Arab World, Iran is pretty stable by comparison. Though as the showed, many Iranians are unhappy with the status quo. I'm open to the idea, but may you please give more details about such a scenario? -- 19:53, March 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * Acorrding to my poltics of the middle east teache during the green revoulation the Assembly of Experts were talking about using thier power to impeach the sumprme leader but they decide against it. I told him about the milddeastern poltics of the new union timeline and he said that he felt that is was plauable that the Soviet Union, Afganstan and Mesopotamia would be able to infucnele the Assembly of Experts into impeahc the sumprme leader. This lead to a constinal crisis and a possable cival war. ~Gold

Again, Gold: Sign your bloody posts.

Arab uprisings are not going to inspire the Iranians - it would be viewed as something bad simply because it is Arabs with the problem.

You would only see Iran worse off following the Soviets going along with sanctions.

Assembly of Experts would not do such a thing. A Rubber-stamp group if there was ever one.

Really, atl you may see milder response to the protests - don't see much else happening.

Lordganon (talk) 06:37, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

East Germany (New Union)
I was on Wikipedia again recently and I found an sub-article on the Culture of East Germany, where East Germans viewed West Germans as snobs and West Germans viewed East Germans as Poor and Racist. There is also a visible East-West divide. This all happened during in our timeline but what if that divide grew leading to the separation of the two Germanys. There would be a socialist (democratic) revolution which would be supported by the Soviet Union (New Union) in 2004. It would also be Democratic.

Some things the new East Germany would be like,
 * Dominant Party socialist state (PDS have 80% seats in all parliaments)
 * Currency- Ost Deutsche Mark
 * lots of high flats such as 2310638063_0f1a8c4b6d_z.jpg

--JLUkball1234 (talk) 21:32, March 24, 2015 (UTC)


 * While an interesting idea, I don't see any reason why East Germany would even consider seceding from the rest of Germany. For all intents and purposes, East Germany (and to a lesser extent the USSR) got the better end of the deal following reunification. The government relocated itself to Berlin. The eastern states gained a large amount of money to rebuild their crumbling infrastructure. Hell, the current Chancellor of Germany is (or rather was) East German. Ironically (though still unlikely), I actually think it would be more likely that West Germany tries to secede. After all, West Germans had to experience higher taxes and a higher unemployment in order to rebuild the east. Not to mention that all of the secessionist movement in Germany are within the western states (such as Bavaria).


 * By comparison, Germany would not be comparable to the dissolution of Yemen (which does happen ATL). Unlike Germany (which was only divided following WWII), the two Yemens were never united in modern times (only sharing the name out of regionalism). Also unlike Germany, the former North Yemen held total domination over the former South Yemen (which many South Yemenis resented). The third and final difference is that unlike Germany, South Yemen did try to secede from the North, resulting in a civil war just years after unification. IMHO, Yemen had a much better chance of dividing over Germany.


 * However (if you are still interested), I do have several alternatives for East Germany which I was going to expand upon at some point. Among them include:


 * (or the ) could see more success in the eastern states (with the CPSU continuing to being successful in the USSR). Die Linke already won control recently in, so it's not too unseen.


 * With the continuation of the USSR, could have wider support among East Germans. At the extreme end of this, East Germans continue to see themselves as unique in a united Germany (though no different than the South is within the USA).


 * At the more extreme end (though still possible), those East Germans who really favor a return to the past may emigrate to the Soviet Union (which would be a better destination than OTL). would be a prime location by the late 1990s, though I could see  (Kaliningrad) being a possible target. I could also see some West Germans moving here to take advantage of the new markets within the USSR (while not having to be fluent in Russian).


 * -- 03:59, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, East Germany reappearing doesn't make much sense. Only people I have ever heard of wanting something like that is die-hards. They could just move to the SU.

Can see Die Linke doing better, with communism not being painted with a brush to the same degree as otl.

Don't see Ostalgie being more or less popular then otl, though.

Steppeland more likely by far.

Lordganon (talk) 06:42, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

Venuzula
I wonder what would happen to Venuzala. Dose any thing think the the soviet union could have persuade Chaves to chose someone less radical then Maduro for running mate. -Gold


 * As LG stated to you before, please sign your comments (we shouldn't have to be doing this for you).


 * In regards to Venezuela, I highly doubt there would be any real difference from OTL. While I could see the Soviet government putting some pressure on Venezuela, in the long run it wouldn't make any considerable difference. In fact, I believe the USSR would be more favorable towards Chavez and Maduro (just as Russia has OTL [if not more so]). More for them to gain if Venezuela were to remain an anti-American, socialist state. -- 18:54, March 28, 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - would be little to no difference. Lordganon (talk) 11:51, March 30, 2015 (UTC)

what did you did with my anthems? :(
I remember that I suggested you an anthems of the republics section and that you approved it and even reorganized it, what happened with that? :(

If you were interested in putting them again, and seeing what people are talking over east Germany up there, I would make Auferstanden Aus Ruinen as the anthem of the Steppeland ASSR.

Also, I told you about the Poles in Ukraine and you said they were too few for be putted as a minority, but this is not the case in Belarus :P, where Poles are still the third largest ethnic group. I've even though of a Kresy Wschodnie ASSR in the old eastern Poland.

Regarding Birobidzhan..... theoreticaly in OTL it is a JEWISH and not Jiddisch autonomous oblast so I would make Hebrew the first official language instead of Yiddish if the majority of population continued to be jewish, and for last, it will be nice if the Baltics, Georgia, and Moldova had stayed in this New Union if Gorbachov made it even better, what do you think?

I am not updating my ATLs much now so I report for duty in New Union here.

Breizhcatalonia1993 (talk) 10:43, April 3, 2015 (UTC)


 * Do forgive me, but I quite some time ago. This was mostly done for the actual hymn itself and not the ones of the republics. You have also been inactive on the page for years and assumed you just lost interest. If you are interested in continuing the page, I will be more than willing to remove its obsolete status.


 * "Auferstanden aus Ruinen" sounds quite appropriate for Steppeland.


 * Even though ethnic Poles make up a significant proportion of Belarus' population, there still doesn't exist any reason to establish an autonomous republic for them at the present. I'm interested in the idea, but all the new ASSRs made for this timeline were only established because there exists historical backing, which I have been unable to find in regards to Polish Belarusians (let alone Polish Soviets in general). If you can find me an article which shows that the people here wanted to establish an autonomous republic, than I'm all open to exploring this possibility. But if they were fine with the status quo, then I see no reason to change that at the moment.


 * While the JAO was established as a Jewish homeland, it wasn't as successful as it could've been. While there exists some loopholes that I intend to use in order to give the JAO more of a Jewish population, the region would still be linguistically Russian. Only recently has Yiddish been returning to schools in the region, so it's mostly official due to history. While many Jews who left for Israel would return to Russia (OTL), they would remain small. At the most, Hebrew would be a minor language in the JAO.


 * In his defense, those six republics were well intent on leaving the USSR, regardless of what Gorbachev did. The Baltic States literally saw the Soviets as nothing more than occupiers and stated their only option was independence. Georgians were just as keen on leaving, though later on would go into civil war (which leads to a pro-Russian government). Moldova (at the time) wanted to return to Romanian control (which it had been prior to WWII), and it almost happened (OTL) had it not been for Gagauzia and Transnistria. The only oddball was Armenia, which actually took some part in the New Union Treaty at the very end. This was nowhere near enough to keep Armenia in the USSR, but their president(s) remained very open to Russia. All in all, I say the USSR is lucky in what it got (ATL), much better than the alternative (i.e., OTL).


 * As always, I'm open to any suggestions. Just don't go editing all willy-nilly and bring all suggestions to their respected talk pages for discussion. -- 17:41, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

An ASSR for the Belorussian Poles is not a bad idea - centered in otl Voranava District - since they are the majority there, and the largest grouping in a few nearby districts. As for a desire... Poles were discouraged in a lot of ways right up until the end of the USSR. I imagine it was never an option which was the problem, not the lack of desire. Can't find anything on it, mind, but the discrimination against Poles in the USSR is known.

Hebrew being well-known to Jews is a far newer development than most think - Yiddish was once far more common, and the linga fraca. It'd be the one in use in the JAO on some level, though I would bet on Israel encouraging Hebrew in a major way.

Lordganon (talk) 11:22, April 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to say, LG, wasn't expecting you to come out in favor of a "Polish ASSR." But I have to agree that there should exist some opening ATL for such a thing to happen, despite not developing OTL. Though to be fair, I've been doing some reading on this for a while now (since Brei brought it up), and I guess he'll be getting his wish (happy to say).




 * I decided to play around with potential borders, but I have to say I don't see much potential with LG's initial suggestion. Only two raions in the Grodno Oblast have Polish majority/plurality. In the rest of the oblast, Poles make up a decent percentage, but are minorities (compared to Belarusians). I've uploaded a map showing the percentage of Poles in each raion (with red labeling Poles as a minority).


 * But all together, Poles make up a decent population when counting the entire Grodno Oblast. Given the nature of ASSRs across the USSR, I doubt there would be much complaining if more portions of the oblast (if not the entire region) would be organized into an ASSR. The following map shows a potential border for a "Polish ASSR." While it could include the entire oblast, this map shows it including only the those raions which have at least a population where a tenth of the population is Polish. This border also matches the historic boundaries of the oblast (back when it was annexed into the USSR). While there could be a push by the non-Polish raions, I honestly can't see them complaining about being included into this ASSR, as they too would gain regional autonomy (could also be a way for the USSR to assure the region remains loyal instead of wishing to leave).


 * As for Hebrew in the JAO, I can totally see Israel pushing for its greater use in the region (especially if the ideas I have for the region come to fruition). I still don't see it becoming an official language by today, with Russian remaining the lingua franca and Yiddish being cultural. -- 17:02, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

...That seems a bit large to me, Nuke. All I had in mind was the 4 NW districts. Rest, in my opinion, have too few Poles. Lordganon (talk) 10:28, April 13, 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say, LG, that I still find it pointless to just establish a small ASSR in the manner you are suggesting. Firstly, the total Polish population of the entire oblast is 24%, which sounds pretty decent and similar to other ASSRs. In fact, I could see Moscow push to include a larger area to assure the region remains Soviet (which is kinda a hallmark for the USSR). This would especially be the case early on, as discrimination would still exist in some areas. In the long run, the Polish population (ATL) would expand and migrate within the ASSR, so the percentage by today could be closer to 30% (if not more) and more evenly spread out.


 * The second reason is because the area you propose would include the regional capital of Grodno. To me this seems like a huge problem for the short term, and it would probably easier in the long run to simply reorganize the entire oblast into an ASSR (as opposed to redrawing the borders and relocating the regional government). As mentioned before, this has been the USSR's M.O. for decades. Had the Polish population been centered more specifically within the region, than a split seems okay. But since they are more distributed across the entire region (making up more than a fifth of the population in most raions), it just seems easier to keep the same keep the building as is, just under new management. -- 21:25, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

...Population would be no smaller than many of the other ones you have. Size not so relevant.

...Then put the city outside the ASSR.

Lordganon (talk) 04:09, April 15, 2015 (UTC)

About the FIFA World Cup and UEFA Euro
Since in this TL the Soviet Union doesn't collapse, does that mean that the Soviets will be the host of the ? Also, since Ukraine doesn't become independent here, would the hosts of be Poland and the USSR, or would the Soviet Union be the only host?

Godfrey Raphael (talk) 05:59, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

Methinks having only one of the two host is a more likely idea. Lordganon (talk) 10:28, April 13, 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not into sports, so forgive me if I'm not detailed enough. I don't see any reason why the USSR wouldn't host the 2018 games. The only change that would be made is that the venues would spread out to include more cities outside of Russia (places like Baku, Kiev, Minsk, and Tashkent [among others]). I can't speak for 2012, as I don't know what you are talking about. -- 21:30, April 13, 2015 (UTC)