Talk:Latgalia (1983: Doomsday)

I may be interested in adopting this article. Any one have information on how much of Latvia was wrecked?

213.67.188.141 22:44, December 27, 2013 (UTC)Karlsvognen

Pretty much the whole area between the three "states" is a write-off. Lordganon (talk) 09:25, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Adopted. Reximus | Talk to Me! 18:40, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Not one thing you added is plausible, and much of that is horribly inaccurate. You need to drop all the socialist rhetoric you keep adding to these things. Lordganon (talk) 14:16, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

LG, how is it implausible? Care to go into some details? I think that in a state which had been ruled by a Communist iron fist for so long would be easily thrown into the hands of a military leader. The Latgales had no real political leadership to unite the nation at first; they lack any really large cities (Rezekne has 30,000 people in modern day), and had no representation in the Latvian SSR.

I think that a military leader rising up would make decent sense. It gives order immeadiately to the region, and it provides a plausible transition from a member of the USSR to an independent and capitalist state. I was only thinking of keeping Eglītis around for a few years. In my opinion, it is better than just declaring a duchy out of nowhere, as we see in Courland.

If that is not implausible, can you elaborate what is not plausible? The only reason for the so-called "socialist rhetoric" is that both Latvia (under the USSR) and Finland (led by the socialist SDP) had socialist leaders at the time, and I would sense a strong centralization effort by the government should a Doomsday occur. Reximus | Talk to Me! 07:32, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Courland was not "declared out of nowhere." Have to wonder if you even read it.

Simply put, no military bases in the area.

To say that there would be no political leadership in the area is inaccurate, at best. The Soviets did have governmental bodies below the republics. There would be some sort of authority in the region, though it would not be communist very long, given the locals.

Having a "socialist leader" means nothing of the sort. Despite what many think in your neck of the woods, being a "socialist" means none of that. Just because they are a socialist doesn't mean they centralize the state at random, or reorganize the entire state. Not only would that not be legal, but these countries also have constitutions, and in Finland, other parties. Heck, in Finland the so-called "socialist" parties - an exaggeration, fyi - are a minority today, and were no larger in 1983. Their leader being the PM means little, as does a member of their party being president.

With regards to Latvia, still kind of irrelevant. The locals are not "socialist." Nor is their politicians. To put that in perspective, the "socialist" parties in Latvia today primarily advocate Russian-minority rights.

And, for that matter, Russians would not be the majority. Not even close. Russians and other minorities have never been more than a third of the population of Latvia. You're not even going to have many refugees from that direction - most refugees into this area will be other Latvians.

Lordganon (talk) 15:47, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

And still you persist with the Russian numbers. Not even remotely accurate, Rex. They need to go. Lordganon (talk) 09:17, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone with an interest in this page *cough* LG *cough*. So, I was looking up Soviet military installations in the west of Latvia, and noticed that the Soviets had a nuclear base located at Aluksne (ok, to be specific at Zeltini, 21 km away). Here are a few links: A Flickr collection with some info, A bit on Latvian USSR bases, and a travel guide to the area.

What do you think the fate of this place is? I cannot quite tell how many rockets were there or if the Americans would've known about them or not. Reximus | Talk to Me! 05:40, September 15, 2014 (UTC)