Alternative History
Advertisement
Archives (March 2010 – April 2011)
1234

Some general questions

So, as I said, I meant to do pages on the various republics and I'd also like to expand the main USSR page a bit, add what is mentioned in the main TL, things like that. However, I have a few questions. This new Union, does it strictly cover foreign affairs, the military and the president? Or does it, like the European Union, have a common market and currency? Also, what was the driving force for the Russian SFSR to disolve? I mean, true, there are a lot of nations in the RSFSR, but I don't really see any separatism, especially not in Siberia and the Far East. This excludes Chechnya, of course, and other nationalities in the Caucaus. I just can't see the motivation for this.--Vladivostok 08:51, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Well, the main reason I dissolved Russia is because I believe it would help out with Russia's large size. During the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, Russia's vast size was not a big of an issue because vast power of the central government. In OTL with Russia as a federation, it being so big can easily be represented by the little subjects. But in TTL, with Russia being an entity in a larger federation, the subjects have to go to greater lengths to get heard. I believe that it would escalate into the regions (like the Far East and Siberia) wanting sovereignty from Russia, and becoming their own republic within the Soviet Union. I still need to work on it a little bit more, but I have no intentions of turning back. As for the government, it is a union of sovereign states, run by a common currency, military, and president. —NuclearVacuum 17:18, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, well my main concern is that the entirety of Russia is almost entirely Russian, 79,8% in 2002 being Russian. I mean, even in the mentioned republics, the Russians are a vast majority, would they really want to become ethnic "Siberians"? It is your choice, of course I'll respect your decisions, but purposefully breaking their country apart? It's not in Russia's M.O. Look at Chechnya, look at Abkhazia. These lands really don't have anything to offer and yet they still want to be the top dog.
And did you like what I wrote on the USSR? Nothing radical, mostly established canon and the military was taken from Wikipedia and I may expand on it later. I didn't change anything in the TL page, I just corrected some errors.--Vladivostok 17:42, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, these movements are based on representation in a huge nation, and have nothing to do with ethics. There are currently movements to do just that in OTL. And yes, I love what you wrote. Keep it up. —NuclearVacuum 18:21, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not trying to hassle you with the subject, it's just that if the Soviet Union wore to hypothetically brake up, would these countries be totally sovereign and have nothing to do with Russia as a whole? Couldn't there be an organization within an organization that at least put ethnically Russian states under a joint Russian organization? An "All Russian's Union/League", or something similar? Something that binds them on a small scale?--Vladivostok 18:33, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Not too sure. But lets not worry too much about it, k? —NuclearVacuum 19:06, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, but how will I ever fall asleep now? Okay, no problem, it was just a thought.--Vladivostok 22:06, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

European Union

Is the European Union a sovereign superstate. Or the constituent parts still independent. If so I would like to help on the UK. Bob 19:44, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

The European Union is the exact same in TTL as in OTL. I guess you can help out if you wish, thank you for asking. —NuclearVacuum 20:03, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Position: Cold War Aftermath

Interesting, the end of the Cold War would be marked by the creation of this New Union and by it opening up to the world again,which it had not done so since the early 1900's and throughout the Great War. Morale would increase most likely due to this Union, unlike in OTL (the destruction or seperation of the Soviet Union only cracked the morale). A sense of reconstruction would apear and the Soviet Union would be able to help its seperate yet united nation enter a better economic postiopn and by today it would e one of the leading ecomonys. Does this sound about right?? BlackSkyEmpire 23:10, November 25, 2010 (UTC)BlackSkyEmpire

You pretty much hit the nail on the coffin. ^_^ --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 13:22, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

Major changes to the timeline

I have been doing a lot of reading lately on an alternate history forum, and reading several threads about timelines similar to New Union. One of the things I came across was about the Taliban. With the USSR continuing to exist, and Central Asia being in peace, this would most likely mean that the Taliban would be more cautious in Afghanistan, and may not even become prosperous. What would this mean? Well... in short:

  • Afghanistan would not be ruled by the Taliban, or the Taliban would not gain as much territory as in OTL. Maybe the Taliban would move from a radical group into a Pashtun nationalist movement that gains support from Pakistan, leading to the collapse of Afghanistan.
  • 9/11 and the USS Cole bombing would not happen, as Al-Qaeda would have no safe haven for their organization. This would be a very happy ending for New York, and the World Trade Centers would still grace the NY skylines, but this could lead to new terrorist attacks, as the safety measures that followed 9/11 would not be enforced. This could leave the possibility that the transatlantic terrorist attacks would happen. I will leave that up for discussion.
  • The War on Terror would not exist, or would not be as extensive as in OTL. This would possibly mean that the west would not become Islamophobic.
  • The forum mentioned that the War in Iraq would not happen, because Al-Qaeda would not be much of a threat as in OTL, and the fear that they are gaining support from Saddam would not be. But the other reason is because Saddam supposedly was making WMDs, and not cooperating with the UN. So I say its a 50-50 chance that the Iraq war happens.

None of these are cannon. I would really like to discuss this before I make any changes. So please, if you are interested, please give me your opinions. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:50, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Couldnt Al-Qaeda still use sudan as a safe haven for its activities during the 90s? they would probably be a little different, and the US woulc have a reason to enter the darfur conflict, not to mention higher involvement and commitment to somalia, intervention in rwanda, and perhaps the role of the kurds in iraq could be played out by the south sudanese. and with ethiopia modified in this tl, this might fit in pretty well. Gatemonger 03:15, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't Al-Qaeda being kicked out by the Sudanese government by the time the Taliban offered them assistance? But I like the sound involving Somalia and Sudan. Since it didn't relate to this particular message, I was going to consider the Soviet Union leading the way in the recognition of Somaliland, since the USSR is taking a big role in Somalia in TTL. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 04:44, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

So based on what Gatemonger has mentioned, here is what I have been thinking lately.

  • The Taliban would either feel more cautious with the Soviet Union still existing, and the Soviet Union would have no intention on having a radical Islamic state next door. They would help fund the Najibullah-government of Afghanistan, which may allow Afghanistan to be in more peace. Or more likely, Afghanistan would follow the same events as OTL, up until the Taliban presence, in which the USSR would most likely help fund the Northern Alliance. This could lead to the Taliban possibly being transformed into a pro-Pashtun independence movement. The southern portion of Afghanistan may also declare their independence as the "Islamic Republic of Pashtunistan," and would only be recognized by Pakistan and maybe a few other states. The USSR and the USA would not recognize it, claiming the government of the Northern Alliance was the government of all the Afghans. This would be pretty interesting.
  • Al-Qaeda would be forced to stay in Africa. They would splinter around Sudan and Somalia, which had "radical" Islamic governments. This still leads to 9/11, and the US would most likely invade Sudan instead of Afghanistan. This would bring the life of the Darfur and Southern Sudanese issues in the global light, possibly leading to the independence of both governments with US help. Or the US would treat the Darfurs similar to the Kurds after the Persian Gulf War. I will need some more information involving Darfur and South Sudan, but I do agree, I am open to new ideas, and that South Sudan WILL be renamed something different from South Sudan.
  • The Al-Qaeda presence would mainly remain in Sudan, while Al-Qaeda in Somalia would be relatively small, but still powerful. Whether it is simply to assist in their Ethiopian allies, or the unfortunate event that Al-Qaeda attacks the USSR in a similar attack as 9/11, the USSR would go into war in Somalia (as written on Ethiopia's page). This might lead to the joint Ethiopian-Soviet recognizing of the independence of Somaliland. I think that would make the Somalilanders very happy, as no one recognize them in OTL.

That's pretty much it. None of this is cannon yet, and I would really love some feedback before I make any changes to the map and such. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 19:43, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Update: I was correct. Bin Laden was banned by the Sudanese government. Bin Laden could have simply ignored this and remain hidden (as we all know he is very good at), or he leave, but Al-Qaeda remains. Not too sure, does anybody have any more insight on this, because I am too lazy to look into this. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:12, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Somalia, or maybe Syria, would be the best options. Or maybe even the tribal areas of Pakistan like otl. Lordganon 07:50, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
Hm... not too sure about Syria, and Pakistan may lead to the same situation as in OTL, in which war would be in Afghanistan. Plus I would rather the US and USSR keep their own conflicts, rather than having a joint one. I will do some more research, maybe there is a way that Al-Qaeda would not be kicked out of Sudan. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:36, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

I got a comment back from Gatemonger here, and he mentions that the USSR continuing would make the border region of the USSR (i.e., Afghanistan) a less likely place for Al-Qaeda to work, and that Africa would become a safe haven for a similar organization for Al-Qaeda. So here is what I am thinking about now:

  • The USSR would help fund the Communist government of Afghanistan for some time, but either it is overrun or merges with the Northern Alliance, leading to Soviet support for the Northern Alliance. Pakistan, which attempted to form a pro-Pakistani dictatorship in Afghanistan, would continue to be in TTL. Pakistan would soon put their support for the Taliban, which would transform into a pro-Pashtun nationalist movement, leading to the declaration of Pashtunistan, which is only recognized by Pakistan and maybe a few other nations.
  • Osama bin Laden would remain in Africa, which would remain a safe haven for terrorist organizations. September 11 would probably happen, leading to the US going into war in bin Laden's new home, Sudan. This leads to the US recognition of Darfur and South Sudan as separate nations. Whether bin Ladan is captured in TTL is debatable.
  • Al-Qaeda would also have support in Somalia, leading to Somalia going into war with them to remove the radical Islamic government. A terrorist attack would happen in the USSR (what this attack would be, I am still thinking of something), leading to the Soviets going into war with Somalia. The Soviets and Ethiopians would recognize Somaliland.
  • Whether Iraq, Libya, or Syria go into war based on terrorism is debatable. All three nations would have semi-strong relations with the USSR. Whether the USSR would simply stop funding them after they turn on them, or whether the three feel threatened to turn against their major ally, I can not say immediately.

What do you think. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:55, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

I am getting very little response from Gatemonger, but other than that, I am about ready to determine what is to become canon. Here is how I see the timeline so far:
  • With no communist coup, Gorbachev's policies towards the Najibullah-government of Afghanistan would be much different from Yeltsin's policies. Instead of cutting off all ties, the Soviet Union would continue to fund Najibullah as his government would gradually transform into a social democratic nation much like their neighbors to the north. However, Gorbachev and the Soviet Union would also attempt to broker peace between Najibullah and the Mujahideen, and gaining some new relations with Ahmad Shah Massoud. When Pakistan gets involved in Afghanistan, assisting other factions, the former enemies would unite to turn back Pakistan. Gradually, the Mujahideen and the former communists would would morph together into a "United Front" against Pakistan's allies, the Taliban. By 1997, the United Front (with Soviet help) would come out as the victors, defeating the Taliban. However, the Taliban would gradually form into a Pashtun nationalist movement. In 1999, the former Taliban leaders would declare the Pashtun lands in southern Afghanistan as the Islamic Republic of Pashtunistan, which runs under a Taliban-like government. It would only be recognized by Pakistan, and several other nations. The USSR and Pakistan's ally (the USA) would recognize the government formed by the United Front as the legitimate government of all Afghans. Afghanistan has become a similar situation as Cyprus in OTL.
  • With a greater Soviet presence in the region, and the Taliban transforming into a less radical organization, Osama bin Ladan would be forced to remain in Africa. Al-Qaeda (or an Al-Qaeda-like organization) would form and gain foot in several radical Islamic nations. They may also have a foot in Pakistan and Pashtunistan, but I am not too sure. Sudan would be the main location, in which the plot for 9/11 would take place. After which, the United States would invade Sudan. Similar to the Persian Gulf, many minorities in Sudan (among which include the Darfurs and the peoples of Southern Sudan) would pressure the US to assist them. The international attention moves to the region, leading to the eventual formation of the Darfur Republic and a South Sudanese government (I want to wait and see what they want to call themselves when they vote in a few weeks in OTL). Al-Qaeda would move the majority of its efforts in Somalia, in which the Islamic Courts welcome bin Laden. Al-Qaeda would continue their reign of terrorism, leading to an eventual attack on the Soviet Union. I am still thinking on what this attack would be, but it would cause the USSR to get involved in Somalia. With help and support from Ethiopia, the USSR would help capture Mogadishu by 2004. The USSR would also lead in the recognition of Somaliland. With the two superpowers in Africa, Al-Qaeda is virtually surrounded and grows weaker. Bin Laden would either have been captured or killed much earlier than in OTL. Al-Qaeda continues to exist, but is a much more splintered organization than OTL's.
  • Saddam Hussein would remain in power, as the USSR would continue to be a major ally of the dictator. Because of this, Saddam would not feel obligated to claim he had WMD, leading to no UN actives in Iraq. Al-Qaeda would not have came here, because the nation would have been more stable with Saddam still in power, plus Saddam would later mention that he thinks Al-Qaeda and bin Laded are "crazy" (I am paraphrasing what he actually said in OTL, but just the thought of him calling someone crazy). Iraq, Syria, and Libya would be the major Soviet allies in the Arab world.
I guess you can call this a better world, or a worse world, it seems to be just as crappy in the Middle East either way. But I still need to do some more work, but I plan on making what I wrote canon within a few days to weeks. I really hope to get people who know the region better to give me some pointers. Until then... --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 19:27, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

South Yemen rises again?

Again, I just came across something that might be interesting to add to the timeline. I read somewhere that had the USSR continue to exist, it would have been likely that they would have supported the Yemeni Socialist Party (the former ruling part of South Yemen). Both North and South Yemen united in 1990 (well before the POD), but I came across that only four years of being united caused them to go into civil war. South Yemen declared their independence once again in 1994, creating the Democratic Republic of Yemen. It was not recognized by any nation, but it seems that several nations (among which included Saudi Arabia) felt sympathy for the Southern cause. I will need to do some more research, but I have to go to work in a few minutes. So here are two possible outcomes.

  • The USSR would have helped broker peace between the newly united region. Yemen remains united, no civil war, and a stronger alliance with the Soviets.
  • The differing relationship between the north and south are too great, and civil war breaks out anyway. In 1994, when South Yemen declares independence again, the USSR would be quick to assist their longtime allies. Saudi Arabia and other nations would follow suit, and Yemen is once again divided into two states.

Just something to make you think. TTFN --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 21:39, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Feel of this New Union

I finally found it again, or actually I finally went looking for it. This video I found a couple of years ago is one of my inspirations for the New Union timeline. I don't mean to be sounding egotistic or anything, but I feel that this video really expresses the feel of the timeline. So anyway, here is the back story. The year is 1991 (I am really not sure what month, if anybody knows, comment) and the USSR is going through change. Some of the most famous television personalities in the Soviet Union (lead by Igor Ugolnikov) came together to sing a song. What do they decide to sing, the national anthem of the Soviet Union, giving it a new age twist. From what I have read, and I have felt since first viewing this, is that the men and women singing and playing are giving their heart and soul out for the Hymn, a scene of Soviet Patriotism at its finest. Check it out. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:54, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Space Race: 21st century

Since I get very little response on my ideas, I guess you can call this my personal blogs and ideas rather than a discussion board. But either way, I have been doing some more reading on the Soviet space program, and reading alternate history threads to get some ideas. I am thinking about changing the space programs globally. Here is what I think the world will be like.

  • The Buran program exists (already canon).
  • The ISS never materializes. Instead, the Soviet Union opts to continue on its Mir-2 space station as a separate entity. With the Soviets still being active in space, the US would eventually have their own working space station (Freedom), active sometime around the late 1990s to early 2000s. Despite there being two space stations, the USA-USSR relations would still be friendly, so Soviet cosmonauts would visit and work on the US shuttle and Freedom, and vice versa.
  • Mir[-1] would not be destroyed. Instead, it would become the first public space station, able to be used for rent space. I read that somewhere.
  • The Soviets would still help assist the crew of Columbia in 2003.
  • The Soviet moonshot is currently scheduled for mid to late 2012. The American Constellations program is still active, and plans to land a man on the Moon sooner than 2020 (but well after the Soviets).
  • The Soviets plan on landing a cosmonaut on Mars within the next 10 years. There is a good change that there will be a second space race between the US and USSR.

I will need to do more research, but here is the gist. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:43, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

Way I figure it when I read these posts of yours here Nuke, is that they are very good ideas, etc. Unless I see something I think may not be workable for some reason, I prolly won't respond, lol. Lordganon 19:38, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much Lordganon. But if I get everything correct the first time, than that does seem kinda weird to me. XD But I do understand. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 19:46, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

Stop me before I cause world peace!

Lolz, I love making titles. But anyway, I have been doing some more thinking and reading and came across more regions of TTL that could differ from OTL.

  • Here are two possible PODs which involve Iraq and Kurdistan. Both would be more positive for Kurdistan, and one for Iraq. Both PODs involve Gorbachev's foreign policy towards friendlier relations with former Cold War allies (Saddam's Iraq being one of them).
    • With a greater Soviet presence in Iraq, and the fear that the US would do nothing as during the Persian Gulf War, the two factions of Kurdistan would feel that fighting each other was not in the best options for the whole of Kurdistan and their recently gained de facto independence. Because of which, the Kurdish Civil War would not happen, and Kurdistan would remain a de facto independent nation to this day. The Soviet Union would also help keep any Iraqi attacks or invasions of Kurdistan at bay.

Kurdistan?

    • [This one I like more] In 1995, there was an attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein. With the Soviet presence in Iraq, Washington would be more interested in the plot. Because of which, the US would secretly support the coup plot. Saddam Hussein is assassinated, and a new Iraqi government begins to form. Whether the new Iraq would continue to be pro-Soviet, I will need to do more research. Maybe Kurdistan would have some pro-Soviet aspects, as two of its major political parties (at the time, not sure about today) are social democratic and socialist. With a new Iraqi government, Kurdistan would declare independence. Iraq and Kurdistan are two separate nations.

State of Puerto Rico?

  • I doubt this could be possible, but it is worth mentioning. Somehow, the Soviet presence would cause Puerto Rico to vote for statehood. Not to sure how much this would work, since Cuba would have been neutral from the Soviet Union up until the Putin administration. But that is OTL. Maybe Cuba would develop good relations much earlier, leading to former tensions in the region. If anybody has any comments or ideas, please respond for this one. Also, if Puerto Rico were to become a state for TTL, I want the US Virgin Islands to be a part of this new state. That's just me.

It's time like this I like being the lobby attendant at McDonadl's, I get hours to walk and think. Anyway, just wanted to update you all. Enjoy. Also, World Peace is out of the question XP --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:39, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget about Turkey when dealing with Kurdistan. Even here outright independence for the Kurds may not end well. Lordganon 04:31, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
How so? I know there is a large Kurdish community in Turkey, but how would Iraqi Kurdistan being independent cause trouble from Turkey? Are you rearing to the Kurdish Turks wanting to leave Turkey and join this new nation, causing the Kurdish conflict to move from Iraq to Turkey? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:50, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

To a certain extent. More so it's the trouble an independent Kurdistan would cause them. The Turkish government has gone on the record otl as half-threatening to invade the area if it declared itself independent, and has even bombed the area a couple of times.

They still have troubles with rebels in Kurd-majority areas of Turkey, which are largely based in northern Iraq. Having a nation right next door controlled by them, and harboring fugitives and rebels, would cause massive issues for them, and the whole region. These have gone on since before the 1980s, and Turkey may very well invade, or threaten to do so, the region.

Some sort of accommodation would have to be made, though I doubt Turkey would except any of it.

I seem to recall reading that the War on Terror happens here to some degree, Turkish actions against these rebels could end of being part of it, too.

Not that I don't think it should happen - Kurdish independence - but the Turkey angle needs to be looked at, for sure.

Lordganon 23:14, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Just a little update.
  • Cuba would have reestablished relations with the USSR earlier in TTL. Along with greater relations with Venezuela and Nicaragua would lead to a greater turnout and awareness for the 1998 Puerto Rican referendum on statehood. Approximately 52% of the Puerto Ricans vote in favor of statehood. PR would be admitted some point between 2000 and 2003. The US Virgin Islands would also request similar status in the US, leading to them being merged into Puerto Rico some point between 2003 and 2005.
  • With Gorbachev's policies being friendly to former Soviet allies of the Cold War (Saddam's Iraq being one of them), the US would take more interest towards rumors of a coup and assassination plot against Saddam by Iraqi soldiers. The US would follow suit, and Saddam would be killed. A new Iraqi government would take hold. The Kurdish civil war would not happen. There are two possible PODs after this.
    • With a greater US presence in Iraqi Kurdistan, the new Iraqi government would show more interest towards Soviet-styled democracy. Despite the US only wanting to keep peace in the region, Kurdistan takes it as a chance to declare independence. It is most likely that the new Iraqi government would not support this, leading to Kurdistan being semi-recognized.
    • Kurdistan would be more inclined to assist in forming a new Iraqi government. Kurdistan would be among the founding entities of a new federation. Both the USA and USSR would begin cooperation with the new government, leading to possible Iraqi neutrality in this new Cold War. Kurdistan would be happy, as they can continue their existence in a federation, while Iraq remains intact as a democracy. I think this one sounds better and more likely IMHO.
TTFN. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:30, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Good ideas, as always, nuke. I agree that the second is more likely, too. Lordganon 15:43, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Just curious, did you only answer because you felt obligated to do so? I know what I mentioned before, but I don't want to feel like I am making someone answer me. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:59, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
Naw. Figured I's just let you know that you were right, lol. Lordganon 00:56, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Middle East update and idea

I don't know if this would be considered cheating or whether it is just an idea I came up with out of dumb luck. The recent revolutions and uprisings in the Middle East have become a historic event that rivals the revolutions and uprisings that Eastern Europe went threw in the 1980s and 1990s. Egypt and Tunisia have are getting new governments, and Libya is about to do the same. Since the USSR is a major player in the region in TTL (as it was during the Cold War), I feel I needed to bring up the Soviet position for current events. I dough the continuation of the USSR would change these uprisings and their eventual outcomes, but the USSR would play an important role in their development. Just like how the US was reluctant to assist in Egypt (because they support freedom and had an important alliance with Egypt), the Soviet Union would feel the same way on behalf of Libya (which would be one of the USSR's major allies). I think similar to the US approach, the USSR would plead for peace in the region, and would hope to work out a peaceful solution to the problem. Rumors would soon spread that Gadaffi has left Libya for the USSR (not Venezuela), leading to the chaos that followed. The USSR would only threaten to go to war if NATO were to have indeed launched an invasion (which was a rumor I heard on TV)). When France recognize the opposition government of Libya, I am not too sure what the USSR would do. Most likely, they would continue to recognize the Gadaffi government, but would not be closed minded towards the opposition government. When (and if) Gadaffi is to leave Libya, I am sure the USSR would protect him, and the USSR would soon reopen relations with the new government of Libya.

File:Flag of Iraq 1959-1963.svg

Flag of Iraq?

The other issue I want to bring up would be Iraq. Currently, I have not made any of my proposed ideas canon, so here is a timeline idea I have that would sync with the current events. The [First] Gulf War happens as in OTL (especially since it happened prior to the POD). The US would remain in Kurdistan, assisting in their de facto independence. The USSR would continue to support the Hussein government, but would also help to broker peaceful relations between the two governments. The attempted assassination plot against Hussein would fail (as in OTL), but greater Soviet presence in Iraq would lead to greater American presence in Kurdistan, so the Kurdish civil war would not happen. Hussein would remain in power until the uprisings of 2011. Similar to Egypt and Libya, revolution would break out. Hussein would eventually leave the nation, leading to a new Iraqi government by the people. Similar to how the opposition government of Libya is adopting the former monarch flag, Iraq would drop the "Hussein flag" and replace it with the cool looking "sun flag." Though I don't think it would have happened yet, but the new Iraqi government would still rely on the USSR for assistance, and would establish better relations with Kurdistan, potentially leading to a "Federation of Iraq." It's just a thought, but I think it sounds interesting. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:45, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, though since they would want to still have relations with the new governments, I can't see the USSR taking in the former dictators directly. Aiding and supporting them, sure - but it would probably be more likely for them to put the dictators up in some sort of puppet country of theirs somewhere. Call it having a slight distance from it, but still being involved. Lordganon 20:01, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
File:Proposed flag of Iraq.svg

Flag of the Federation of Iraq?

I understand. But I was referring only to Gadaffi, not Hussein. Maybe he would go to Venezuela instead of the USSR, but whatever. I still need to work out the kinks a little. I have been doing some more reading, and I have some interesting ideas for this "Federation of Iraq." It is a proposed state in which Arab Iraq and Kurdistan work together as a single nation. Similar to the USSR or Ethiopia, each state is sovereign, having their own say in global affairs. The flag of this federation would be the 2004 proposed flag of Iraq (which I think looks amazing). Though it would not be part of the initial formation, but the potential for the primarily Shia community of Iraq would gain similar sovereignty. The only problem is that unlike the advantages that this timeline has given me, this his happening in real time. So it is hard for me to work this out without going to far into the future. But either way, it does sound really interesting. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:15, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear update

Japan is going Chernobyl, weird. I am very concerned for the Japanese, but I think they are taking it very well. Anyway, here is a potential Soviet response to this:

  • The Soviet Union has plans to evacuate the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin if needed. The Soviet union offers assistance if the Japanese request it, as the Soviet's have had "experience" with this type of disaster. In the greater consensus, Soviet officials give gratitude for the quick response by the Japanese. Many republics (primarily the Ukraine) declare for a republic-wide study on their nuclear reactors.

Just something I wanted to bring up. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:15, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Federation of Iraq

File:Proposed flag of Iraq.svg

Flag of the Federation of Iraq.

File:IraqiFederation.png

Possible map of the "states" of the Federation of Iraq.

I am getting close to making this cannon. There are some changes from what I wrote just above, so here is the POD for how the Federation of Iraq is established. After the Gulf War, the US would continue to have a presence in Iraq (similar to OTL). Despite Gorbachev's support for democracy, many believe his policy towards Saddam Hussein is "too soft" towards the dictator. Gorbachev would make note that the USSR had no real interest in getting into a conflict with the US over Iraq. Despite this, the US fears that Hussein is secretly cooperating with the Soviets. In 1995, when operatives in Kurdistan get word of a plot to assassinate Hussein, the CIA would take more interest in the idea. With American support, Hussein would be killed in northern Iraq. The Iraqi National Congress and its allies would soon get involved in a total coup and later "civil war" between the INC and pro-Hussein factions. The war would not last long, ending in a INC victory by 1996. With Hussein gone, the rivalry of the Kurdish parties would not explode into civil war, but would still have some many tensions between the two and the INC, which halts total peace in Iraq for more years. By 2003, the situation calms greatly. By this time, it had been proposed to form a new Iraqi government. The proposed government would be based on the Soviet style of sovereign nations under one government. Iraqi Kurdistan and "Iraqi Arabia" would be the two main states. This would soon change, as Shia Arabs (who have been treated wrongly by Hussein) feel that they should gain a similar status as the Kurds. The final proposal divided Iraq into four states: Kurdistan, a Sunni state, a Shia state, and Baghdad becoming a federal district. The new nation, named the "Federation of Iraq," would come into existence by 2004. During the 2011 riots, Iraq would be one of the few Arab nations not to break out in anti-government protests. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:56, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

I love this timeline. Probably because the POD is much more recent than my others, which gives me more information and changes that can happen in a short period of time. The only downside is that I only know a small region of time and space. So there are probably hundreds of differences in this timeline that can be, but I wouldn't have any knowadge of doing. So please, if any of you know something that I don't write me about it (I really would love to read it). So now for my next issue of "What's going to be changed" blog, where I found out something interesting and I want to bring it up before making it canon. So here they are:

  • I believe I made mention of this before, but in TTL, the Constellations Program would continue to exist. The main reasons for this are: Obama is not elected president (because the US would be more conservative), and the announcement that the USSR are planning on landing a man on the Moon as early as 2012.
  • I just began reading about the Hermes program, Europe's response to the US Shuttle program and the USSR Buran program. It was canceled in 1992 because Europe re-looked at the need for the program. With the USSR gone, and the soon to be proposed ISS, Europe decided that it was much cheaper to hop a ride from the US and Russia. But in TTL, the US and USSR don't consider the idea of an ISS. The US and USSR go their separate ways, which may lead to the "rebirth" of the Hermes program. So there would be not one, nor two, but three shuttle programs.

This is what's on my mind so far. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:42, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

US foreign policy

I think I should read more about Alternate History lingo, because I would like to know if what I have is a term. If anybody knows what this would be called, please let me know. I feel I have a reluctance to move away from OTL, despite the fact that the POD would clearly have major effects across the world. So for instance, I continue to feel that the USA is more powerful than the USSR, despite the fact that the USSR continues in TTL. Or rather I continue to work on the US as it has work in OTL, despite the fact that the US might have a very different look with the Soviets still kicking. This is very true with the current rebellions in Libya and the Middle East. I am witnessing a world changing event that I would hope my children would ask me about when they learn it in school. Just like how I talked to my mom about Vietnam, or my Grandma about the Civil War (historical joke XD). I've said this before, I am "cheating," in which I am not really thinking about how these rebellions will effect the world, I am actually thinking how they will effect my own timelines.

Anyway, I need to good look at the US foreign policy in TTL. I posted a video in which Putin gives his opinion on the US attacks on Libya, and believing that the US is going down a dark turn. I think this video has helped make me think a little. Key events in OTL would be the US involvement in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and now Libya. In all cases, the US gets involved in internal affairs. I can see justification with the [first] Gulf War and Sudan (TTL), as Iraq invaded another nation, while rebel groups in Sudan attacked the US.

I have already been re-looking at Yugoslavia, and I have already reworked Iraq, so it seems like I was already on the ball. =3 Here is a quick rethink:

  • The US does not bomb Yugoslavia (primarily in fear that the Soviets would get involved).
  • The war in Iraq does not happen, because Iraq would have gone democratic around 1995.
  • I can't say much about Libya as of yet, but I believe it would be likely that the no-fly zone would not happen, and would lead to a joint UN sanction on Libya, possibly leading to some support for the rebel groups by both the US and USSR.

TTFN. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:01, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

No more Mongolia

After a while of thinking about it, and having many believe it is a bad idea, I have come to the conclusion that Mongolia becoming a republic of the USSR is a bad idea, especially if the Sino-Soviet relations want to get any better. That does not mean that Mongolia will be left in the dark. The USSR will continue in great relations with Mongolia, and Mongolia will still consider the USSR as their Big Brother. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:31, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Armenia in??

File:ArmeniaQuestionmark.svg

  New Union
  Former republics which have moved farthest from the [former] USSR
  Former republic which have moderate USSR relations
  Former republics which have good relations
  No more

I made mention that there was a better chance and world recognition on Georgia or Armenia joining the new union rather than Mongolia. And if you know my brain, I got to thinking. Knowing how the Armenian-Russian relations are in OTL, and compared to semi-better relations in TTL, I feel that the idea of Armenia rejoining the Union at a later date may be very possible. It makes some sense... I read somewhere that Armenia is the [only] Caucasian ally that Russia truly has (which is funny because Azerbaijan was willing to remain in a union while Armenia wasn't), Armenia is a member of the CSTO (while the other two aren't), and Armenia is supportive of the CIS. Though the issue involving Nagorno-Karabakh was rocky in OTL, war was avoided thanks to the Soviet Union. It also makes sense since Macedonia rejoined Yugoslavia at a later date, so why not Armenia? Out of all the six republics which left, the Baltic States would never consider it, Moldova was merged into Romania, and Georgia would either remain neutral or move completely to NATO. Armenia seems to be perfect. But the question is... would the Armenian people and government want to rejoin the USSR?

I am going to be doing something new here. I am going to make a poll on the subject, and see what you all think.


Please comment if possible. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:49, March 30, 2011 (UTC)