Talk:Socialist Siberia (1983: Doomsday)

map
Thanks for providing a visual! Does the USSS have control over that whole territory, or is some of that just a claim? Benkarnell 05:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is more or less what Siberia controls in the year 2008 (apart from a few blown-up cities inside that map). The territory it starts out with at first is going to be smaller, but as the USSS begins to rebuild its air force/navy its going to start to annex the untouched areas left in Arctic Russia, Alaska, and the northern isles of Japan by the mid 2000's.--ShutUpNavi 18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Concerning Alaska I do not think they would be able to claim it that rapidly... As Alaska is quite heavily destroyed and nuked (military bases and everything) i cant imagine that a Siberian Government would be interested in annexing a transcontinental territory... Maybe focussing on China, Mongolia and Ural... But this large complex needs more in depth-thoughts as it will be touching so many difficult topics at once (remaining nuclear Weapons and how to deal with it etc.)...that's just my though about that (Xi'Reney) not logged in, sry...

O.K I took some of your advice. On the map I made the areas actually controlled by Siberia in green with the areas it claims in dark grey. Now I am going to have Siberia merge with Mongolia seeing as they already have a lot in common back in the 1980s. I am still going to have them go after Alaska, but this time it will be limited to the Aleutian Islands and the Bering Sea coastline as they have a large fishing indestrie and a oil that the soviets would want for there country (and its not that far away). I desided to take your advice and ignore Japan though. And of cource they now claim all of the old Soviet Union, but they cant gain control over it.--ShutUpNavi 23:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Name
First of all I don't understand why the independent Siberia exists at all. Why the Soviet authorities who survived in Siberia would suddenly stop claiming the territory of the European USSR? I believe the name and "de-jure" map of the Soviet Union would remain the same as before the Holocaust.

Anyway "Союз Советских Социалистических Сиби́рь" and "Union of Soviet Socialist Siberia" sound terrible both in Russian and in English. In theory, "Union of Soviet Socialist Siberia" is "Союз Советской Социалистической Сибири" in Russian, but it's still stupid: how you can make a union out of a half of just one Soviet republic? At the best it would be a republic: Siberian Soviet Socialist Republic (Сибирская Советская Социалистическая Республика, based on most Soviet republics' names) or Siberian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (Сибирская Советская Федеративная Социалистическая Республика, based on the name of Russia, which seems more appropriate because Siberia includes ethnic autonomies like Buryatia). — Hellerick 04:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you said. I mainly named it that because I couldn’t think of any other way to name it at the time. As you see the country now claims all of the territory in the Soviet Union, and since in now will have territory in Alaska and Mongolia it can still be a Union. Anyways I am thinking about changing the name back to just the Soviet Union. But for now I need to stop coming up with more ideas and get to work on writing this page.--ShutUpNavi 23:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unrealistic figures
Most notably hit was the port city of Vladivostok, and the biggest of Siberian cities Novosibirsk where up to 4 million people died alone. — in 1982 the population of Novosibrisk was less than 1.4 million people. To kill 4 million people you would have to roast an area of the size of France.

The civilians living in Siberian cities however had less warning and were given evacuation orders only moments before the nukes hit. — Why? The Soviet Union was preparing for the war for decades, and everything was thoroughly thought over. The "System of Civil Warning" worked (and still works) very well, all the people were taught what to do etc. There would be a huge number of survivors. It would very difficult to survive after the war, because Siberia always was depending on the supply from the rest of Russia/USSR, and simply can't exist all by itself, especially with its economics and communications destroyed in the war. — Hellerick 15:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like Navi was considering changing the official name back to USSR. Of course, the rest of the world may call them Siberia.  Navi, I wondered the same thing: how did the Siberians handle the self sufficiency issue?  Benkarnell 16:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Alaska
Why the heck Siberia is invading Alaska? Does not it have enough tundras of its own? Siberia should be looking for a colony, a territory suitable for agriculture, and resettling the Soviet survivors. Maybe Scandinavia? Or the Philippines. But Alaska is worthless. — Hellerick 17:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Alaska is a source of readily available oil, and developed for exploitation by 1983. A 1998 study here suggested that there are between 5.7 billion barrels (910,000,000 m3) and 16.0 billion barrels (2.54×109 m3) of technically recoverable oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve, not including everything that has been pumped out of Prudhoe bay and other reaches.  And that's not including other natural resources (minerals, etc) that can be extracted there.  And who better to exploit the tundra than hardened Russians?  So I disagree quite firmly that Alaska is worthless. --Louisiannan 19:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * True, oil is one of the commodities most lacking in the surviving industrialized regions. That's why the ANZ has become so interested in both Indonesia and in alternate fuels.  (Benkarnell)
 * And what happened to Siberian oil? They evaporated it or something? Siberia has much more petroleum than it needs, especially with its economics devastated after the Doomsday. And they don't have America or Western Europe to sell all the excessive oil to. Siberia needs food, not oil. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 03:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There are fisheries that can be exploited in Alaska. Hellerick you have to understand humanity. We conquer things because we can. The SSSR and Alaska are prime examples. Mr.Xeight 12:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Basques did not have to conquer Newfoundland to exploit the fishery resources of the Grand Banks — they were doing it from Spain. Controlling Kamchatka you can exploit all the surrounding seas. Siberia is struggling for survival, it is not in a situation when it conquers because it can. Siberia's idée fix should be restoration of the Soviet Union, and/or finding a "promised land" for its citizens. If it's going to waste the scanty facilities left after the Doomsday into conquering a piece of ice (even if the ice is soaked in oil) it won't last long. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 12:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That is solid reasoning. The only thing I can say now is maybe the creators of 83DD want the Soviet Union to be left in ruin. Mr.Xeight 13:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean Siberia to be trying to restore the Soviet Union: be jealously watching other the powers' attempts to approach "their legitimate territory", trying to establish "colonies" in the lost territories, etc. I see Siberia as a kind of Battlestar Galactica: they are praying at the insignia of the Fifteen Republics, and are trying to find the legendary "Earth". — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 14:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hellerick. the alaskan conquest makes little sense. --HAD 08:36, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Mongolia
Some maps show Mongolia a part of Siberia, and some don't. I suggest a compromise solution: Siberia and Mongolia act as a de-facto single political entity, even though Mongolia was not formally annexed by Siberia. — Hellerick 04:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic incubators
See my note here: Talk:Siberian Census of 2001 (1983: Doomsday). — Hellerick 04:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Need Help
I could do up this page to the present day if you want Red guy ~2 16:23, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this is an open TL, you are more then welcome too. Just add the  template to the top.  Mitro 18:07, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Gorbach(o)v?
Is this Mikhail Gorbachev, or Gorbachov? --DarthEinstein 00:41, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry,my bad,yes,it is Gorbachev. And if you have any suggestion about who would be the leader here,let me know,because,even if it is possible that he survived,I'm having difficulty finding it plausible.--Vladivostok 04:01, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Here are the members of the Politburo (the governing body of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, that's what you call "Andropov's inner circle" I guess) on September 26th, 1983:


 * Viktor Grishin (the party leader of Moscow)
 * Dinmukhamed Kunayev (the party leader of Kazakhstan)
 * Vladimir Shcherbitskiy (the party leader of Ukraine)
 * Yuriy Andropov (the party leader of the Soviet Union)
 * Andrey Gromyko (the Foreign Minister)
 * Grigoriy Romanov (the party leader of Leningrad)
 * Dmitriy Ustinov (the Defense Minister)
 * Konstantin Chernenko (important party functionary; very sick)
 * Nikolay Tikhonov (the Prime Minister)
 * Mikhail Gorbachev (the Chairman of the Legislative Proposals Committee)
 * Geydar Aliyev (the First Deputy Prime Minister of the Soviet Union; the future president of Azerbaijan)

Kunayev seems to be the most likely to survive. — Hellerick 12:35, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow,that's a long list,thanks for the info. Please,feel free to comment on what I've been trying to write about in the article. I'd welcome any suggestions.--Vladivostok 20:17, October 21, 2009 (UTC)