       |
Hello and welcome to the Alternate History Wiki! We are a community for creating fictional alternative histories. We hope you will feel at home here and wish you good luck contributing to our ever-growing collection of timelines.
Some other helpful reference pages:
Some general tips:
Regards, NuclearVacuum (talk) 13:08, November 3, 2019 (UTC) |
Re:New Union
Sorry for the confusion. I haven't been working on the New Union timeline for a few years now (hence why no updates have been made). For all intense and purposes, the timeline is frozen in the mid/late 2010s for the time being. I intend to come back and update the timeline at some point and I do have plans to rewrite much of the history and canon (to a minor degree) when that happens.
Until then, the timeline is currently closed and no additions will be accepted at this time.
If you are interested, I'm currently active on my timeline Russian America and am accepting proposals and discussions on it. If you are interested, please give it a read.
Other than that, please take care. -- NuclearVacuum 
20:24, November 3, 2019 (UTC)
Re:Football in Alaska
A discussion was actually done about this a while back (here's the link). The TL;DR version is that soccer (association football) wouldn't be as popular (being surpassed by gridiron football), but it would still have a larger following compared to the United States. The "Russian Americans" (the predominantly Slavic population) overwhelmingly supported the spread of continental sports (i.e., gridiron football and baseball) instead of their European counterparts (soccer and cricket). In contrast, the Dougs (English Alaskans) would've sup[ported the rise of those European/British counterparts.
All-in-all, I predict soccer would be most dominant in the Columbia River watershed area and devoid in the rest of the nation (comparatively speaking).
Alaska would have a national team and they would participate in FIFA. How prominent they are is up in the air as of now. My guess is that the Alaskan team has qualified for several World Cups but they have never won it themselves. For all intense and purposes, I believe they would be better than the US team, but still weaker than the most successful.
To keep things clear, the "CSKA Moscow" that has been mentioned (as far as I'm aware) is HC CSKA Moscow (not the soccer team).
If you are interested in creating an article about the national Alaskan team or its domestic league, you are more than welcome to. But please read and follow the Editorial Guidelines before doing so.
If you have any more questions, please do let me know. Have fun. -- NuclearVacuum 19:15, November 4, 2019 (UTC)
Re:DeLorean
What are you talking about?
I have zero intention of having DeLorean (ATL) being sold to anyone. -- NuclearVacuum 16:45, November 6, 2019 (UTC)
Editing Articles Without Permission
Please refrain from editing/expanding upon articles without permission. This is bad etiquette. Your recent additions to my articles have been removed. Please don't let this happen again. Thank you. -- NuclearVacuum 15:51, November 7, 2019 (UTC)
- As stated before, the New Union timeline is currently closed. I will not be accepting any new additions/edits at this time. Thank you. -- NuclearVacuum
03:42, November 8, 2019 (UTC)
- When it comes to any of the former republics of the USSR rejoining Russia in the Russian America timeline, I've already made the decision to not go through with them for various reasons. The only exception was Belarus.
- In regards to Kazakhstan, I don't believe there would be a big push to rejoin Russia. This is due to the ethnic divide and the fact that both nations would retain very good relations. If anything, Nazarbayev has gone out of his way to accommodate the Russians in Northern Kazakhstan and made the need to seek reunification with Russia unneeded. In short, why fix what wasn't broken?
- Um... yeah. I find it very likely that skyscrapers would be built in Alaska (ATL). In fact, I do have a secret project I intend to release soon that deals with this (in many respects).
Categorization and article naming
Hello,
I just message you just to make sure that you will doing the categorization and the naming of your articles properly according to this wiki rules and conventions. The categorization and the timeline name at your articles should be the same with the name of your alternate history so anyone can doing easier navigation of your pages in the future. Please make sure you do not keep insisting on categorizing differently with the name of your timeline.
FirstStooge (talk) 09:41, November 10, 2019 (UTC)
- Every new users make mistakes. In fact, any one makes mistakes. As long as someone is determined enough to learn from his/her own mistakes, he/she will be redeemed(?). What I meant is that is since your are a rookie, you will prone to do something wrong. But, that is okay. If you ask the admins for some guidances, they will be happy to help you.
- Any way, do not forget to categorize your pages according to the countries (for states) or figures (for individuals). It is for making us convenient to find the pages in similar categories (Soviet Union, for example).
- FirstStooge (talk) 09:58, November 10, 2019 (UTC)
Sino-Soviet relations
If you ask me what is my view, my personal opinion for exact, in regard of what would happened between a democratic USSR and the PRC, I will say nothing will on a par with OTL Cold War. Even in the real life, even though the Sino-Soviet relations were turbulent and never stable after the split, we never witnessed a full preparation for war between two countries, only propaganda and several imagined operations.
Economic reforms occurred between two nations will eventually bring them into closer regional cooperation because of their strategic positions in North and East Asia. Your ATL USSR is said to be an ally, or at least friendly to the United States, which China had behaved earlier during the 1970s. If both are friendly to the United States and more benefited from strategic economic cooperation in vital sectors, such as minerals and oils in Central Asia, rather than engaging in military arms, why should a Cold War happened between two nations?
China's maritime disputes with Japan and South Korea will gravitate the former closer again to the Soviet, which is more stronger and prosperous than OTL Russia. No matter how uneasy their relations which each other, Japan and South Korea will stay loyal to the United States, especially South Korea. If the USSR abandoned China and China got closer to the US instead, will the US abandoned its strategic allies Japan and South Korea? Nope. Even if that happened, Japan would severed its relations with the United States and returned to defensive re-armament for protecting themselves from China and the USSR.
You get no Cold War of course, but rather a possible scenario for World War III...
In my perspective, it will be a bit complicated. A democratic USSR will indeed having a thawed diplomatic relations with China, if China stayed same as in our real life, since they both are strategic economic partners. But, a US-friendly USSR is a diplomatic disaster and improbable even for the United States itself regardless it is a democratic country or not. I think you need to reconsider the foreign relations between the USSR and other countries and study first about the possible consequences they will have according to the geographic importance of each nation to the security and prosperity of the USSR.
Greeting,
FirstStooge (talk) 15:23, November 16, 2019 (UTC)
- That is not probable. The NAM is created for the nations that did not want to be involved in the political games between two giants and banded together to avoid be swallowed by that two powers. An economic and military giant like the surviving USSR want to join a group of smaller and weaker nations? What for?
- FirstStooge (talk) 16:43, November 16, 2019 (UTC)
- How it going to be happened?
- FirstStooge (talk) 05:11, November 17, 2019 (UTC)
Where Zhao got the confidence/support to succeed Deng from? The party members or Deng himself? Or maybe the PLA?
FirstStooge (talk) 12:59, November 17, 2019 (UTC)
- If Zhao became the leader, that will be the end of the People's Republic and China would experienced not only economic liberalization, but political democratization. While Hu Yaobang was the proponent of liberalization, Zhao was more skeptical to the old CPC establishment. He was supportive to the Tiananmen student movement which explains why Deng expelled him after 1989 and choose pragmatic but conservative Jiang, the Beijing party leader.
- If you want to save China like in our real life, Zhao is the worst choice. But, if you want to have a China, democratic, liberal and non-aligned, Zhao is your man. Unlike the USSR, the People's Republic will be no more and a democratic regime, maybe called the "Republic of China" (with different Chinese characters from Taiwan's ROC) or also maybe called simply "China", will rule the country. Tibet will be independent if Zhao does not know to engage in political talks with the Dalai Lama, but Taiwan and Hong Kong for sure will be 100% join new democratic China.
- A democratic China led by Zhao maybe will get closer to the United States, but Xinjiang will become a vital, strategic issue, so that is probable for China to say as a non-aligned nation, but having no confrontation with either the US or the USSR. And, I will say it is an interesting idea for your timeline.
- FirstStooge (talk) 15:42, November 17, 2019 (UTC)
- I am terribly sorry for a late reply. For the past two days, I have got a combination of busy and exhausted days and broken internet at home.
- Thank you for your correction. Jiang was the party's Shanghai leader, not Beijing and he is always my personal favorite among the CPC leaders, second only to Deng. His personality is TOO similar with my own. But, that is out of topics, for sure, I am sorry. In short, I am agree with you that he is too pragmatic even to the standard of present generation of CPC leadership.
- Zhu is not bad. He has a strong personality similar with the first generation of leadership. Tough, disciplined and conservative. At a very decisive event when China turned capitalist during the 1990s, I think he is a better alternative than Jiang. Jiang is a master of diplomacy and ruled by balancing powers here and there, through compromises rather than discipline, but Zhu will be more heavy-handed management in tradition with old party veterans which would be good for preserving the party leadership over the Chinese state and society.
- FirstStooge (talk) 12:09, November 19, 2019 (UTC)
If the economic reforms are successful enough, they will not need someone who prefers law and order (Putin), elitist but populist (Sobchak and his daughter), or completely egomaniac (Zhirinovsky). Nemtsov and Kudrin are better candidates in my opinion, especially Kudrin who a can your ATL Medvedev for his economic administration competence.
FirstStooge (talk) 13:24, November 23, 2019 (UTC)
Re:Consultation
What specifically do you want me to comment on? -- NuclearVacuum 16:40, November 16, 2019 (UTC)
Re:President of the USSR
I think I prefer a Central Asian (Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Turkmen, or else) rather than a Mongolian to the office. Most of the Central Asian leaders are maybe autocrats or heavy-handed, but some of them are rather competent administrators in economic management. They are conservatives socially, but liberal economically which I think is better for the Soviet economic growth. - FirstStooge (talk) 16:28, December 5, 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that is why they are conservatives. Why do you think an old politician can not be elected as a president in a democratic nation? If most of the population favors a social conservative policy, such as stability or security, they will elect the preferred candidates no matter how old they are. Even Trump was elected in his 70s.
- Anyway, the Soviet Central Asia was called Turkestan and the Turkestan Soviet Socialist Republic did exist. Central Asia is...no. Turkestan is more appropiate. If you call them as "Central Asian", that is just like calling Mongolic peoples in the Russian Far East as "Far Easterners" which is...weird.
- - FirstStooge (talk) 05:33, December 7, 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for a late reply.
- Yes, Nazarbayev can be a sort of Lee Kuan Yew, an enlightened autocrat, which works for the betterment of his own people rather than enriched himself with high political office in exchange for stability and less political opposition.
- You may do what you pleased regarding this idea.
- - FirstStooge (talk) 10:59, December 8, 2019 (UTC)
For your first question, that is up to your preference since that is your own alternate history.
For your second question, what kind of changes do you want to do over that? I must know first before I allow you to do that.
- FirstStooge (talk) 16:18, December 11, 2019 (UTC)
- And the Latvian SSR too.
- I am afraid I can not allow you to edit my map since everything is still unestablished right now. If you read my ATL USSR, you will find too that it does not contain Lithuania and Estonia as well as Tannu-Tuva since I made them as the Soviet-influenced satellite states, rather than blatantly as the soviet republics within the Soviet Union.
- - FirstStooge (talk) 02:51, December 13, 2019 (UTC)
Re:Mishutin
I'm sorry for being away for weeks and replying so late.
He does not have any independent power base and kind of technocrat loyal to Putin in real life. He will be a good "instrument" for any true leader of the state, but never a real leader of government. He has no great stature or popularity among the common Russians. That is up to you to make him a prime minister/premier or not.
FirstStooge (talk) 15:50, January 27, 2020 (UTC)
Re: Admission for WFAC
Dear 1234chernobyl
Thank you for your interest in my timeline.
You are more than welcome to contribute to the timeline - please feel free to dig in. If you have any question relating to how it should fit within the timeline as a whole (as there are some holes still to be filled) please feel free to ask. Realismadder (talk) 14:39, February 26, 2020 (UTC)
Dear 1234chernobyl!
Of course you can use the picture.
Maybe (but I don't insist) you could somehow mention that it is from my scenario, but, of course, you don't have to.
Greetings,
Trencsmark
Re:China
Just for clarification, I'm not the head of this Wiki. I'm simply an admin and work with others and decisions are made collectively.
Also, please clarify what you are asking me. I don't have any recollection of the topic at hand.
Thank you. -- NuclearVacuum 16:35, March 20, 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. I'm not an expert on pandemics, so I'm probably not the best person to ask on how a democratic China would handle such a situation. If I had to guess (this is 100% my opinion), perhaps the situation would be better in the long run. A democratic China would be more open for international assistance. More transparency would also better prep the world for the pandemic.
- Again, I'm not too engaged on this. But I hope this helps. -- NuclearVacuum 16:53, March 21, 2020 (UTC)
Hello I anwerser on your request to join your to join UN simulator. 1.It isn't mine. 2.You don't need anyone's consent to join.Just need to write your nickname next to country you want to take.
Re:Nazarbayev
Can you provide a link to this information? -- NuclearVacuum 02:46, April 19, 2020 (UTC)
- If that's what was discussed, than it's probably true.
- As for whether I find Nazerbayev a good candidate, I can't say. The fact that he remained in power until just recently, I don't find him too trustworthy (at least IMO). But given the butterflies of a successful New Union Treaty, things could be very different. -- NuclearVacuum 21:22, April 19, 2020 (UTC)
Re:Reform faction
There were quite a few in the waning years of the USSR that favored reforms. Excluding Gorbachev, the ones that come to mind are:
- Eduard Shevardnadze of Georgia
- Askar Akayev of Kyrgyzstan
- Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan
- Nikolai Ryzhkov
- Grigory Yavlinsky
The problem with a few of them is that they gradually became complacent in their new roles and became authoritarian over time. You could chalk this up to the chaotic situation they were put in (ruling new nations and all), but take this with a grain of salt. -- NuclearVacuum 20:01, May 11, 2020 (UTC)
Việt Nam Dân Quốc
I used "Việt Nam Dân Quốc" rather than "Việt Nam Cộng Hòa" because in my timeline Vietnam was invaded by the Chinese Kuomintang rather than the Japanese.
In Chinese language, there are two ways for writing "republic", which is "mínguó" (民國) and "gònghéguó" (共和國). The first compound, which means "people's state", was preferred by the Kuomintang since it is an opposite of "dìguó" (帝国, "empire"), reflecting its anti-imperial agenda and contrasting between the character "民" (people) and "帝" (emperor). That is why it is still used to write the "Republic of China" (中華民國) in Taiwan. The similar word, "minguk", is also used by South Korea for its official name "Republic of Korea" (대한민국/大韓民國 Daehan Minguk).
The second compound (共和國) means "state of togetherness and harmony", a translation of Latin res publica (共和). It is created in Japan to express a government without any king, referring to the Gonghe Regency, a historical period in Chinese history when King Li of Zhou was ousted and thus resulted to a "kingdom without king." This word is favored more by the left-wing parties in East Asia in the 1930s and the 1940s, hence why it is used by People's Republic of China (中华人民共和国 Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó) and North Korea (조선민주주의인민공화국/朝鮮民主主義人民共和國 Joseon Minjujui Inmin Gonghwaguk) right now.
Since in my timeline, the Vietnamese Nationalist Party were in power and influenced heavily by the Chinese Kuomintang, there is no way they would used "cộng hòa" or "cộng hòa quốc", rather they would used "dân quốc", the Sino-Vietnamese reading of "mínguó" (民國).
- FirstStooge (talk) 14:22, May 16, 2020 (UTC)
I know, but, well, Nicu is dead. A dead man can not be dictator right now o_0"
- FirstStooge (talk) 15:27, May 16, 2020 (UTC)
To be honest why I decided to keep the Ceausescus on my timeline is because I want to make Romania a "Europe's North Korea", hampered by nationalistic and pseudo-fascistic tendencies, hereditary leaderships and nuclear ownership (Valentin is a nuclear physicist, remember?). Nicolae was really admiring Kim Il-sung and the Juche idea and he (and his descendants) are the "best" persons to keep everything "worse" in Romania, something that the surviving Soviet Union can not even help them.
Apostol, on other hand, was in some sense a centrist, supporting between pro-Soviet line and an independent line. He was not even a hard-line, counter-reformist, but still a Soviet loyalist. In short, he was a political opportunist. If Romania was ruled by Apostol's line, it will put it together in line with East Germany and Poland. Of course, there would be no pseudo-fascism in Romania imposed by Ceausescu. Romania would be a mediocre communist country that benefited by the Soviet economic reforms if the USSR decided to become like China. But, being lenient? I don't think that would be happened even with Apostol.
The only way to make the communist rule in Romania more lenient is to find someone who either like Alexander Dubcek (liberal humanist) or Imre Nagy (open-minded pragmatist). Being a reformist or pro-market only is not enough. Even Ceausescu was a promising reformist at the very start, yet he grown to be more conservative, ideological and even deranged nationalist as the time progressed. Romania needs a humanistic or pragmatic communist leader if they want a lenient communist rule. I don't think there was any "Romania's Deng Xiaoping", but if you can find it, that was good. Other than that, Romania will still be a miserable country today.
- FirstStooge (talk) 04:46, May 18, 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely an opportunist, even an incompetent one.
- FirstStooge (talk) 22:19, May 19, 2020 (UTC)
Sergei Kirov
Actually I am kind of hesitating in telling you regarding what would happened to the Soviet Union if Kirov survived, since that is also a central story in my timeline (lol, no just kidding).
Well, one thing for sure is Kirov was a Stalinist, although not a hard-liner, but still he was an ardent supporter and close protege of our Dear Comrade Stalin, the Architect of Progressive Humanity!
Pardon my mood, it is the one of the last days of Ramadhan, so my mood is kind of up and down with a glace of dry humour. I am just too hungry and tired lately ^^"
Anyway, if he survived, Kirov would continued most of Stalin's policies, especially in the foreign policy. Cold War would be remained. But, he was not a dogmatist, not a crazy-minded ideological Communist, like Mao Zedong, Enver Hoxha or Kim Il-sung. Why? Because he was corrupt. Yes, he was not an antithesis of Stalin: democratic, humanistic or liberal. His rule in Leningrad was lenient not because he disliked the Party doctrine, but because he accepted bribes and favors from the Leningrad citizens to relax several strict rules imposed by Stalin. His motives were not ideologically driven, but rather than from personal benefits.
Ironically, Kirov was loved because he was corrupt; he was not humanistic, but simply a human. Just like how the younger Chinese generations like Jiang Zemin more than Xi Jinping. Not because he was democratic or competent, but rather because Jiang was more corrupt rather than tyrannical. He did not bothering other people's business, only his. In such authoritarian governments, corrupt politicians who enriched themselves in return to give their people certain extent of liberties are more liked than the ideological and disciplined ones. Kirov, well, would not mind at all about his people's affairs as long as he was happy with his position at the top.
So, if Kirov survived, the Thaw of 1950s would still happened. Stalinism would be abandoned, but Stalin himself would not be denounced openly after his death as what Khrushchev did in real life. Foreign policies would remained, but economic policies would become more liberal and quasi-capitalistic, although not a complete privatization. Why is that possible for economic reform under Kirov? Foreign investments and economic growth would provided a collusion between the state, the Party and the private corporations. The party leaders would enjoyed luxuries and bribes provided by the capitals for them rather than annihilated them, especially the foreign ones.
- FirstStooge (talk) 03:39, May 22, 2020 (UTC)
Not so much information I can dig for Fazekas, which indicating he was not-so-important party officials during his period. He turned to humanism and a little bit of conservatism after the democratization of Romania, but never reached the level of Dubcek. So, he is a so-and-so for me.
- FirstStooge (talk) 19:20, May 27, 2020 (UTC)
Social media
I apologize, but I have quitting SNS about a year ago. I've deleted several of my online accounts lately after I graduated from college, because I want to have a peaceful life. Online socialization is a bit tiring for me ^^"
Don't worry about keep messaging me here. It is the correct place to ask and discuss with each others about Alternate History. So, that's fine, no one is felt disturbed.
Uhmm, about Romanian history, I'm not an expert about it. I've read about Carol I and Ceausescu, but not very much about others (mostly my information came from Wikipedia). But my favorite historical Romanian personality is always Petru Groza. He was non-communist, but played key parts in the creation of Communist Romania more than the Romanian communists themselves.
Groza is always an enigmatic personality for me. He was a wealthy landowner and prominent figure in the Romanian Orthodoxy, yet was so eager in defending communist ideals. Never joined the Communist Party, yet was more Stalinist than the Romanian Communist leadership itself. Without him, that would be more difficult for the Communists to consolidate themselves in Romania. Stern and ambitious, his appearance even looked like Matyas Rakosi for me!
- FirstStooge (talk) 03:39, May 31, 2020 (UTC)
Four Points of Your Question
- Nope, he would belonged to the Agrarian movement of Aleksandr Stamboliyski. The Agrarians were once the most possible rival of the Communist in real life because they have strong base among the peasantry in contrast of the industrial workers. If there is no Bolshevism, communism would be no be as stronger as in OTL and Agrarianism will prevailed. Groza would for sure joined it
- Uh...Russia and Japan were practically allies during World War I. Why would the Russians considered to occupy Honshu? Japan virtually also has no republican movement before World War II. With no Bolshevik revolution, there would be no anti-Tenno movement that led by the Japanese Communist Party. Even the Social Democrats, the legal left-wing party in Imperial Japan, were simply advocated democratization on the British model, but no republicanism. I do not think any chance Japan would became a republic if Russia won the war as a part of Allied Powers
- Nope. But socialism will flourished since Mussolini was once a fanatic member of the Italian Socialist Party, but turned right after his party opposed the war. If the post-war treaties were more lenient, Mussolini would simply took over the ISP and the other socialist parties will either turned to Mussolini's direction or else. Remember, Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British Fascists, was once a member of Labour Party. Several fascists were once belonged to the socialist movement. Even the Bolsheviks were more closer to the Fascists than the Social Democrats in practice and dogmas.
- Yes, of course. Party? They will be more possible to be partyless than belonged to a specific political organization. They will be like radical officers of the Imperial Japanese Army during the 1936 rebellions that killed "corrupt politicians and businessmen". The closest comparison they would be is the Sanacja movement in Poland, led by Marshal Pilsudki, an authoritarian socialist movement supported by a certain anti-politician element of the armed forces.
FirstStooge (talk) 04:24, June 7, 2020 (UTC)
Re:About Trong
- When I saw President Trong for the first time, there is one person I reminded with him: President Moon Jae-in of South Korea. You are correct regarding his initial impression: a moderate. In my TL, Trong can be a student activist when he was young, so his political orientation remains left-wing when he is older. However, I don't think he belong to a democratic socialist party, but rather a liberal one. I planned to name the party "Democratic Party of Vietnam" (Dang Dan chu Viet Nam) in reminiscence of the Indonesian Democratic Party - Struggle and the Minjoo Party of Korea, current governing parties of Indonesia and South Korea, respectively. The DPV would be the ideological successor of People's Democratic Rally (Rassemblement democratique populaire, RDP), a social democratic party in my TL which led by Prince Nguyen Phuc Vinh San (OTL Emperor Duy Tan).
- I don't have any comment to Hoan since he was a hard-liner communist in possible Maoist line. He would turned patriotic by the 1960s in my timeline, just like the leaders of PKI in OTL 1960s Indonesia since there will be no communist China. But, Nguyen Ha Phan is an interesting case. What I learned is he was accused as the CIA agent within the Communist Party. Well, that is not impossible thing since here in Indonesia, we have Adam Malik. Malik was the member of Murba Party, a national-communist party and rival of the PKI. Yet, the party members were included in Suharto's government after the 1965 incident mostly because Malik was a US agent.
- I planned my OTL Vietnam to follow the historical development of Indonesia. By the 1960s, the Communist Party strengthened by a political line independent of Moscow. Ho Chi Minh was either died of malaria in 1941 or deprived of the leadership in 1948 by the younger generation of leaders. Then, an element of Communist Party of Vietnam rebelled, resulting to a counter-rebellion by the Vietnamese Army. The Communists got swept up by the Army and an Army dictatorship ruled for decades. My candidate for Vietnam's Suharto is Nguyen Cao Ky, but I open to another candidate. Maybe there was a Vietnam's Park Chung-hee too, but I am still not knowing about him yet.
-- FirstStooge (talk) 07:59, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
Long answers
I noticed your messages days ago, but I can't reply it immediately for two reasons: (1) I was too concentrating with my own contents on ATL Vietnam so I would ignoring anything before my inspiration get washed away and (2) I have a load of works to do offline throughout this week. However, for a little break right now, I will response to your messages.
- In regard of the ATL Vietnamese Army, the ideological differences between the officers would not be too contrasting, since there is no Vietminh existed. The Vietminh by any virtue, regardless of ideology it possessed, was a patriotic organization for most of the Vietnamese people. Whatever the accusations overseas Vietnamese (especially from the South) have in regard of Chairman Ho, his vision for independence struggle was sincerely patriotic. So, many officers of the PAVN would still find their ways in my ATL Vietnam, unless they rebelled, since they were less influenced by Marxism-Leninism than by patriotic feeling. However, I can't decide yet which ones that would rose into power in TTL, since it depends on how write the progressing narratives on the Vietnamese history.
- Nguyen Ha Phan would be an interesting addition in the case I need to write something full of trouble in my ATL Vietnam. I had decided to make him my ATL Vietnam's Adam Malik, a former Marxist who defected to the right-wing, pro-American cause.
- About Đổng, yes he will learned so much from Japan since it is the TTL regional superpower over Asia. The studies on the Japanese and American military tactics and organizations will be adopted by the Vietnamese officers in my TL, especially after the 1948 reorganization, that shifted away the Army's orientation from the Soviet model to the Western model. In my perspective, Đổng was a politically neutral officer, but became anti-communist as he wanted a non-political armed forces or maybe wanted armed forces as a "balancing power" to the political parties in my ATL Vietnam.
- Lê Trọng Tấn is indeed should belonged to the pro-Duy Tan group of army officers since he would still ideologically inclined toward left-wing groups, but not the Communists. He can be a military associate of Đổng in the development of the Vietnamese Armed Forces and retired peacefully as a respected military general at the end.
- I really wanted to learn about Thâu, but the materials are too scarce, even from within Vietnam. Thâu was a part of "losing side" before the eyes of ruling Communist Party and studies about him are really hard to find. For me, he is like Tan Malaka, while Ho is like Alimin. Tan was a founder and one-time leader of Indonesian Communist Party, but was alienated by his comrades due to his visionary yet idealistic views. At the end, Tan stood against the PKI, while became a menace to the Socialist leaders, such as Sutan Sjahrir or Amir Sjarifuddin, during the Indonesian National Revolution. Alimin, on other hand, degraded into a party veteran and respected as a senior nationalist who survived colonial era, independence war and even parliamentary democracy era. Both were made the National Heroes of Indonesia in 1964 although their ideology soon made forbidden a year later.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 09:22, June 20, 2020 (UTC)
Translation
Well, for first, I need to know what's your intention to translate my article and where is you going to post it. That's a bit sensitive matter since my articles had been plagiarized heavily about 4-5 years ago and it caused great damage not only to my works, but also to this community. I can allow you to translate it as long as you communicate clearly with me. For me, the clarity of intention is matter so much. I will be happy if anyone want to learn alternate history from my works that I have developed for about eight years (I was a rookie too once lol).
--- FirstStooge (talk) 15:39, June 23, 2020 (UTC)
Answers to Comparisons
That is...a very hard question since I did not studying of power relations in Vietnam beyond the 1970s. It is rather unfamilar for me with such subjects about which ones become here and there in the following party congress of the CPV. However, I remembered a certain Deputy PM who loves to tour provinces and gives fluent English speeches (Vu Duc Dam, I presume?). I think he has a promising future career within the party and the government.
For the second question, I think it depends. In my TL, I am certain that Vietnam will remains a democracy as Prince Vinh San (Duy Tan) has a pro-Western democratic outlook compared to Diem or Prince Vin Thuy (Bao Dai). Duy Tan will certainly returned to the throne since his lineage prevailed over Bao Dai (his great-grandfather, Prince Hong Y, was older than Bao Dai's great grandfather, Prince Hong Cai).
Unlike Bhumibol, who was passive and conservative, or Sihanouk, who was eccentric and eclectic, Duy Tan was more Western and progressive. Duy Tan was the key for further democratization in Vietnam and a balancing figure between political parties and the armed forces. As long as he was the monarch, that was unlikely for a coup organized by the army since the army leadership was certainly loyal to him.
Uhmm...I do not understand what you meant by the Japanese specialists will helped the Vietnamese workers be disciplined? Is that political advisors or industrial experts you referred here?
--- FirstStooge (talk) 09:49, June 27, 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that any Japanese specialist will have significant impacts to the Vietnamese working class. The ideological foundation of my ATL Japan is the strong middle-class society. The creation of prosperous middle-class will be the focus of economic development in TTL Vietnam. So, the Japanese experts will be helpful in creating national industries in Vietnam to increase employment.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the state sectors will remained dominant there, both with the helps of Japanese and Soviet engineers. However, as capitals gathered by the 1970s, Vietnam will entered new era where private corporations owned by the Vietnamese nationals arose. If political stability prevailed over factional fightings, Vietnam will became TTL version of Singapore.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 14:29, June 27, 2020 (UTC)
Well, it will be simply like in OTL since TTL China had having two-child policy, rather than one-child, then Vietnam will follows. I think with better health service and health-related infrastructure, that is possible for Vietnam to surpress the birth rate by the 1980s and the 1990s when it became prosperous enough and the workforce demanded more women to work rather than to stay at home. I don't think abortion will be easily legal TTL as when the middle-class expanded, some middle-class will converted to Catholicism. Catholicism is the main barrier for the Philippines to make abortion legal there.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 08:07, June 28, 2020 (UTC)
CPV political notables
Well let me answer one by one in regard of fates of several CPV notables.
- Hoang Van Hoan - Chairman Ho's loyalist. Well of course he will not rose as high-ranking political figures TTL, but his strong defense of Chinese community would made him wealthy and influential in the foreign affairs since he would became a bridge between the Vietnamese and the Chinese governments in dealing with business contracts and bilateral trade. He, ironically, would be one of the richest Vietnamese by the 1970s due to his strong pro-Chinese stance and died comfortably and filthy rich (lol).
- To Huu - A left-wing cultural activist. Without the CPV rule, he would indeed staying as a cultural activist and also a leftist. Not a chance for him as politician, but he would be indeed a nuisance for the military regime. Compared with Bach, Huu would be stubborn and highly oppositional with the armed forces.
- Pham Hung - A long-time Communist. Will remained a Communist TTL, but never became a major politician in any sense. If the military ruled Vietnam TTL, he would get killed immediately for sure.
- Dao Duy Tung - If the CPV is exist TTL even as a minor political power, he would remained and even became a long-time leader of the party. If the CPV fled overseas like the Communist Party of Burma in OTL, he would led it until his death.
- Tran Xuan Bach - Will never joined the Communist Party if the party not ruled. May joined the People's Democratic Rally instead and active as a pro-democracy activist until his death. Unlike in OTL, he would be respected due to his opposition to the military rule in Vietnam.
- Nguyen Ha Phan - An opportunist, you may found him in a right-wing political party in the 1960s until his death if I want.
- Ho Duc Viet - He was a technocrat by any sense and would rose into power after the 1970s, especially when the military regime prevailed. However, he has a potential to become a progressive moderate politician: not too leftist, but not supporting the military either.
- Dinh La Thang - He has a potential as an oligarch like in the sense of Russian business oligarchy. His business-mindedness is sharp and may still involved in a corruption scandal in TTL.
In regard of Dam, what you have explained to me are the exact reasons why I put him into the Premiership in my ATL Vietnam. A technocrat, not an ideological Communist.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 16:15, July 3, 2020 (UTC)
Republic of South East Asia
Hello chernobyl. I see you added Republic of South East Asia (Brotherhood and Unity!) to Category:Delete. Before I delete it, I just want to make sure that this was because you want it gone, and it's not just an accident. Normally to delete a page, you put {{delete|author request}} at the top, which both puts it in the Delete category and adds a message to the top. So you want Republic of South East Asia deleted? Benkarnell (talk) 13:26, July 5, 2020 (UTC)
The Terrorists and the West Map Game is now open, please make your actions and have a good time.
Leonidas huh (talk) 14:08, July 5, 2020 (UTC)
Chào anh, em để ý anh là một trong số những người Việt mà sống ở nước ta duy nhất ở đây; liệu anh có project nào về lịch sử nước ta hoặc có ý định tham gia cái Map game nào không? FroopyZombie (talk) 15:04, July 5, 2020 (UTC)
Chào anh, lại là em đây, cho em hỏi liệu anh có project nào về lịch sử nước ta không nhỉ? em thấy anh hoạt động cũng khá là tích cực trên trang này. FroopyZombie (talk) 10:29, July 11, 2020 (UTC)
A very late reply
Finally, it is Sunday night and I get some times to take a break from my real-life works. Also, I have been focusing on Scandinavia and Madagascar lately, so I've a quite few times to learn or study more about Vietnam etc.
Yes, Thang will be a boss of mega-corporate for sure, not an owner, but rather an experienced businessman. Such a quite feat for someone who have became a member of a communist party in real life to have such good (and dirty) business-mindedness like him.
About Thau, yes you are correct. History favors the winners, they say. Thau was at the losing side of Vietnam's history, just like Diem, Bao and others, regardless of his political positions. There are few studies about him exist and it is hard to grasp a full picture of his life, thought and political activities during his lifetime. Because that will be interesting to see how different will be for the Vietnamese Communists if certain different direction taken during this period, especially with the circumstances like in my timeline.
Regarding the Czechoslovakian communists, all of the figures you have written, except Dubcek, by minimum standard were the Soviet loyalists. Husak, however, held a distinction for being a political opportunist. When the tide was toward reforms, he sided with it. But, when invasion from the Soviets was apparent, he changed his stance.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 13:08, July 12, 2020 (UTC)
The Terrorists and the West
Do you mean, can a player play as two nations? Is so its no unless its a colonial nation.
Leonidas huh (talk) 11:40, July 15, 2020 (UTC)
Wait for a while
For now, I can not have a time to research in regard of your questions. I will spare my time during the weekend to research about the Czechoslovakian communists. I have been immersed about post-WWI caliphates, Hejaz and Libya, my flow of experience is at its highest now. Also, I have working a lot in real life so far and I believe things will got done in Friday or Saturday, so I can not reply so much to you for now.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 14:29, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
The Ashes of Rome II Map Game
The Terrorists and the West was a fluke, i felt like it did not get the right start up so i have revived a much loved Map Game, The Ashes of Rome, i was just wondering if you would be intrested in joining as we are about to have our first turn.
Leonidas huh (talk) 11:31, July 19, 2020 (UTC)
Yes, just go on the page and put your name next to where it says Visagothic Kingdom.
Leonidas huh (talk) 12:11, July 19, 2020 (UTC)
Czechoslovakia (and Romania)
Finally, I got my free time right now. Yes, it is Sunday night, but it is better than never ^^"
Well, we must first understand the Czechoslovakian mentality first. Dubcek is a Slovak, so are Husak and Vladimir Clementis. Strougal is a Czech, Kolder is a Czech, so are Novotny and Gottwald. It is indeed a very, very simplistic categorization, but it can helps us to understand the reformism of KSC at its best.
Except for several exceptions such as Bilek, the reformist and conservative lines within the KSC were divided along the ethnic identities. Czech leaders were more prone to the Soviet line, while Slovak leaders were more independent partly because strong association between Catholicism and Slovakian cultural identity. The Slovaks were more resistant to the orthodox pro-Soviet, such as state atheism or collectivization, that's why Slovak communists were more independent-minded than their Czech counterparts. On other hand, the Czechs are one of the most atheistic societies even in present OTL.
Similar mentality was also existed among the Polish and Hungarians where the Catholic Church as a barrier against Communism. Even the most independent-minded Communists were drawn from these two cultures, say Gomulka and Nagy. In addition, the Czechoslovakians are not similar with the Yugoslavians or the Greater Russians. They were more liberal in nature and also more humanistic. The influence of democratic thinkings from western Europe and Germany were more felt there compared to their Southern and Eastern brethrens, resulted to a liberal tendency of the Czechs and the Slovaks.
Dubcek's humanistic socialism was rooted deeply on that liberal tradition while his independence from Soviet line was resulted from his Catholic-influenced Slovak upbringing. Yes, Dubcek never embraced Catholicism until his death, but still this cultural mentality exists among the Slovak communists. Added by the experience during his younger years in the Soviet Union, Dubcek was know what is right or wrong or whether any policy imposed by the Soviets disastrous to his people. Ernst Reuter of West Berlin and Nagy Imre of Hungary also experienced harsh living in the Soviet similar to Dubcek and they too turned liberal and even anti-Soviet at some point.
Husak too at some point was as humanistic as Dubcek, atlhough, unlike Dubcek, he had no courage at all against the Soviet might. My point is the Czechoslovakians were the most liberal and reformist society within the Communist bloc. If the Soviets became more reformist, Czechoslovakia will never be more pleased to turn more liberal and even most pro-Soviet leaders will eventually turn to liberal Communism too at the best, not only Dubcek or Hussak.
Isn't Ion Iliescu was a reformist too before he abandoned Communism and switched to democratic socialism during the revolution? Not a best leader indeed, but quite sane one compared to the Ceausescus and maybe able to stir the country more friendly with the West. Such a good pragmatic, not the cleanest one for sure.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 15:18, July 19, 2020 (UTC)
The signatories of the Letter of the Six were at any sense reformists to Ceausescu's insanity even as some of them were gripped hard to the Soviet influence at the past. That showed us how fluid politics really is. One day you are a conservative, next day you are a revolutionary, depending on how the people perceives.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 16:13, July 19, 2020 (UTC)
That's what I have done for past ten years (lol). Politically, Indonesia is a real mess right now. Younger people around my generation have been more liberal than the older generations (yes, the boomers lol). I am too a liberal myself. However, as we are growing liberal, the reaction of course is also stronger. Hard-line Islamist groups infiltrated colleges and charities, intoxicating people with radical doctrines here and there. My region is one of the most conservative provinces, so around me there are a LOT of anti-government talks, including my parents.
I voted for Joko Widodo (we called him Jokowi or some affectionately Pakde, which meant "Uncle") in the past year election. Yet, I am not his staunch supporter. So many things I have been differed from his policies because well I am a critical person. But, the Islamists are really not joking. They REALLY hate freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. They are WORSE than Jokowi's policies, so that's why I tend to be more careful politically. Sometimes criticism against Jokowi is mixed with their anti-liberal tendencies, which made me afraid to become more politically active lately.
Then I realized how pragmatic I am.
We have a late comedian named Dono, a member of comedy group Warkop DKI. He, however, was a sharp social observant as he educated in sociology. Dono once wrote an article in the 1990s about why the Indonesian Polices corrupt or not as good as we expected. He concluded that the life itself is harsh. The polices did not enriched themselves, but they did to survive. Being not corrupt is not as easy as we can say. It is very humane thing and the root of the problem is very deep entrenched.
At that point, I stopped to criticize. Nothing is infallible, including the government, no matter how not agreeable their policies are. Sometimes, there are worse things will happened if that criticism turns into hatred. The changes are a long-term and should be done throughout education rather demonstrations or riots. Like former Uruguayan President Jose Mujica said, even a former radical like himself was entrapped by his position at the top. Jokowi is like that too. No matter how good his personal values are, he is a "prisoner" at a jail named the Presidency.
Then, I stopped to expect anything, not with an apathy, but rather with a sane realization. I can not stop or fix anything by myself, but I hope there is a way to do that, no matter how slow or how far in future it will be. I rather defend democracy even with such not infallible institutions rather have to accept Islamist tyranny and fanaticism that will leave me suffocated. I am a Muslim myself, but I detest fanaticism or religious sentiments that harbored by such groups. Pragmatism is not a choice for me now, it is the life itself.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 16:50, July 19, 2020 (UTC)
The Ashes of Rome II
Can we continue diplomacy at some point, i have stated my demands on the main page, also, if you have discord then here is the invite to our server. https://discord.gg/kZybnF
TAoR II
Sure, i will commence the invasion in 515/
Leonidas huh (talk) 16:50, July 23, 2020 (UTC)
The Ashes of Rome II
The map game has ended due to inactivity, i was wondering if you would like to join in on making a collab timeline based on TAoR II with me and two other guys. If you would like to join in could you tell me your discord tag so i can add you to the chat.
Leonidas huh (talk) 11:30, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
Ion Gheorghe Maurer
Today is the Eid al-Adha, so I can finally take a breath from all of my works right now.
Like what I always said to you: any Romanian leaders aside of the Ceausescus were sane, despite how mediocre they would be. Maurer is the prime example how one can be saner than Ceausescu but will be a really, really mediocre leader if he ascended to the General-Secretary post. He would be depended so much on the Soviets, strengthened ties with other Comecon member states but not with China and DPRK. Then...just it! He had no reformist mentality (even Ceausescu having it during his early years as leader). Then the country would gradually degenerated into a gerontocracy of senior party leaders.
Democratic reforms would be easier. No massive demonstrations here and there. Only increasingly senile party leaders, some may died. Then younger party leaders took the leadership and slowly dismantled the people's democratic state into a liberal democracy. No delusional supreme leader ever giving speech to angry demonstrators, assumed they supported his measures rather against him. Well, the positive side with Maurer on top is probably no bloodshed would be happened, I presume.
--FirstStooge (talk) 04:25, July 31, 2020 (UTC)
Re:Joining Risk! Game
Hello! Welcome to the Wiki,
All province numbers are given on the province map shown under the "Maps" section of the page. Here is an excerpt of the map in the region you are asking for:
Let me know if you have any other questions Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 14:23, August 2, 2020 (UTC)
Re:Wait
Some yes, some no. Well, Khrushchev once danced at the dinner table like a hysteric overweight bear(!) and Beria loyally carried the execution orders for their beloved leader, the architect of Communism, leader of progressive humanity, Comrade Iosif Stalin. Then, what they did to his legacies after his death? You guess it.
Praised Ceausescu when he was still around and alive is a sane thing for all Romanian politicians who wanted to survive during that period. Ceausescu, on other hand, became increasingly having delusions of grandeur, placing himself among the pantheon of great Romanian heroes and rulers. That is definitely an insanity.
-- FirstStooge (talk) 10:31, August 5, 2020 (UTC)
Gheorghiu-Dej was never a staunch Stalinist, although really loyal to the Soviets. He even purged hard-liners like Ana Pauker. Pirvulescu was Gheorgiu-Dej's loyalist and I assume he had a quite distaste of Stalin-like personality cult of Ceausescu. At the age of 84, he had nothing to lose by throwing such gamble in criticizing Ceausescu, openly. In fact he was right, the glorification of Ceausescu tainted Ceausescu personally with the Party and the fall of Ceausescu indeed followed by the collapse of party regime because it have become so much associated with Ceausescu's ideas and cults. I think you are correct in calling Pirvulescu "a man who was right at the wrong time".
-- FirstStooge (talk) 02:36, August 7, 2020 (UTC)
Regarding Vietnam
Excuse me, could you please leave the southern Tip of the Viet coast for me? DaJovannicEmpire (talk) 05:06, August 9, 2020 (UTC) (Singapore)
Yes, you may Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 03:00, August 12, 2020 (UTC)
We will need to work together. The Maravi Ascendency is threatening India and South East Asia with his demands. DaJovannicEmpire (talk) 09:56, August 13, 2020 (UTC)
He has demanded that india and SEA is his. lets stock up troops and face him. DaJovannicEmpire (talk) 14:23, August 14, 2020 (UTC)
risk!
I am the player of Austrian Empire from Risk! Map game. Do you have discord? If you do, send me friend request please. My discord is revanger#4132
Factionalism
- Manescu and Ceausescu known each other since their youth days in the Communist Youth Union. Manescu supported Ceausescu simply because he was loyal to the latter. Added he was Ceausescu's in law later, it was easier for him to the high-profile political access. Usual corruption and nepotism things.
- Perhaps such indication is correct at some parts. Obviously a political marriage, but probably not to force Nicu to enter politics. He was already prepared to enter politics long before the marriage.
- He will changed side, like what he did before. Opportunism, I say.
- Gheorghiu-Dej at some degree was a pro-Soviet in paper only, but like what I said he was not a Stalinist. He was independent since the very start, but who want to work against Uncle Joe and got purged instead? Even Imre Nagy was pro-Soviet in paper during his early years after the war in Hungary. Pro-Soviet stance was never purely ideological, but rather strategical. Ulbricht was a Stalinist, had a profound dislike to Khrushchev, yet never announced being anti-Soviet in 1953. Their stances at the best were fluctuative.
- Do you mean Pauker being a Kadar-like leader? Not a chance. She was a Stalinist by blood (I mean her ideological conviction was deeply entrenched).
--- FirstStooge (talk) 14:34, August 15, 2020 (UTC)
Risk Map Game
I sent you a dip on turn 14 to be apart of your alliance. I sent diplomates to Singapore to talk to them about all of this. The Maravi are in Singapore also to talk to them. - Domingo_Nosferatu
Re:Population
OK, fixed already. Still a large population though lol.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 11:37, August 20, 2020 (UTC)
Some replies
I have been a very bad health lately, so I apologize for my late replies
Well, I do not understand what do you meant by 'Cockroach Revolution'. Is that about the recent Belarusian anti-government protest or about something else?
Preferrable communists? Then you "sinfully" forget about Tito (Yugoslavia). LOL, just kidding. But, no seriously, what is a standard of a preferrable communist? Deng Xiaoping, for example, was a communist by association, but a neoliberal by ideology. He was a good leader in building post-Mao Chinese economy, although it paved way to widespread corruptions.
Nosaka Sanzo, the General-Secretary of Communist Party of Japan, was a mix between of staunch ideological Marxist and a old-time Westernly gentleman intellectual. He is my favorite communist leader so far mostly because of how he directed the CPJ in legal and constitutional struggles in the 1950s until 1980s. He is also present on my timeline, but I am not yet explored him (for seven f*cking years of my procrastination!). His successors in the CPJ are all moderates and really humanistic in their views, including present Party Chairman Shii Kazuo who even sprouting some critics to Chinese Communist Party's recent geopolitical policies.
Then, there was also Puran Chand Joshi, the General-Secretary of Communist Party of India. He was pro-Nehru communist and in constant conflict with staunch pro-Soviet line within the party.
If you are not talking about the leaders, but rather "ordinary communists", then we have my favorite philosopher Slavoj Zizek. He was a member of the Communist League of Yugoslavia before the country's break-up and remains most prominent left-wing analyst of today's pop culture and global politics. Zizek is vulgar and brash but really open-minded and sound. He is really an intellectual representation of working class people.
Edit: I forgot about Abdullah Öcalan, the founder of Kurdistan Workers' Party. He is not a communist, but a leftist in general term. His ideas are inspiring the governance of Syria's Rojava today and a present example of how socialism can work and should work today, not in authoritarian manner but rather in decentralized and libertarian ways.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 14:59, August 29, 2020 (UTC)
- Oh don't worry, it is just me being overworked last week, but everything is fine (except for my rheumatism).
- My sympathy for the Belarusian protesters, as long they not waving American flag or something which I really dislike during the Hong Kong protests last year. I really hope the protests are drawn from the citizens themselves rather than being fueled by foreign nations. As a left-libertarian myself, I believe citizens should have their right to vote and to vote out their leader and civil society should be free the state's interference.
- Well, that were a lot of pragmatic communists, Marxist-Leninists for exact, since there are three streams of Marxism. However, as you know, they were either shot by the Stalinists or faded away in the background. Earl Browder was the famous among that pragmatists and "Browderism" was kind of insult word by the Stalinists at that time to paint anyone who defect from the Stalinist line.
- Thank you so much for your kind words. My sincere gratitude.
- --- FirstStooge (talk) 17:34, August 29, 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations
Congratulations, Cher, you are nominated for the best new contributor of 2020 for the 2021 Stirling Awards. Please accept your nomination on the Awards page on the discussion section.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 06:46, September 3, 2020 (UTC)
Re: Risk end
Hello!
You can consider Risk to be concluded at this point, but there may be new games like Risk in the future, which I'll let you know Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 21:40, September 5, 2020 (UTC)
Map, Hungary and books
I think it is fine enough. However, I noticed you "butchered" Jordan and China, what happened to them?
I don't matter about your ideas, except about Nagy. I think you should read Nagy's biography "Imre Nagy: A Biography" (2009) from "Communist Lives" series. He was a revolutionary from the very start, only getting pragmatic over the times, especially after he experienced the Purge and early years of Socialist Hungary. He was solidly a Marxist by conviction and maybe the first Eurocommunist even before Togliatti.
The USSR as the leading force? A model, yes. An example, yes. Leading force? Never. There were three groups that fought over the influences of American working class at that period: Communists, fascists and (yes) Roman Catholic Church. The Republican Party failed the workers at the start of Depression. Roosevelt and the Democrats, however, believed the workers were important enough for their votings. He introduced New Deal to avert the Communists, fascists and Catholics from influencing the working people. When New Deal was introduced, working classes were mostly pro-Roosevelt. Eastern and Western States were liberals, Southern States were conservatives, but their poor, low-educated working class united behind Roosevelt between 1933-1945, showing how influential Roosevelt as the leading figure of American workers, not Lenin, Stalin or Molotov.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 03:26, September 8, 2020 (UTC)
- From my experiences as a poor college student in the years past, I prefer to get free books rather than buy one (lol). Seriously, I can't understand Vietnamese fluently. I am even still helped by Google Translate. Well, my ATL does not cover other countries outside Japan during the 1500s until 1800s (except for some few holms), so it probably still happened in my TL.
- However, since Japan was more normal in my TL (no Sengoku, no Oda, more trading overseas etc.), I think Nihonmachi communities in Southeast Asia would growing significantly in comparison with the Chinatown ones. Unlike in OTL, overseas Japanese communities are more common in my TL, especially in Vietnam (Da Nang, Hoi An), the Philippines (Manila) and Moroland (Davao).
- If have any input in regard such matters, especially in Vietnam, please let me know. I will like for some contributing ideas on how such holms (if you are not familiar with this term, you can see in my main TL page) are going to be expanded, creating a parallel universe alongside the one we lives right now.
- --- FirstStooge (talk) 19:05, September 8, 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, Aceh is really conservative because how stubborn they are in holding their local, Islamic-based traditions and customs. Even Tan Malaka had mentioned Aceh alongside Ternate (North Moluccas), Jambi and Banjarmasin (South Borneo, my home region) as one of most reactionary, less revolutionary regions in Indonesia in his booklet Naar de Republiek Indonesia ("Toward the Republic of Indonesia", 1925). For an agnostic like me, it is suffocating living conservative South Borneo. Imagine other progressive Indonesians who living in Aceh: it is terrible.
- Apel is a good suggestion for my timeline. I really appreciate your input since I have lost in direction regarding East Germany after Brandler, LOL. Ulbricht did rising in power, but as events unfolded in 1953, the downfall of Pieck resulted to Ulbricht's own downfall. He was the most bureaucratic-minded, narrow-minded, Soviet ass-licking party official who was delusional enough to think the 1953 rebellion is not occurring because the SED's mismanagement and increasing limitations on society. Ponomarenko was a bit centrist in my TL because he was not exposed to Stalinism, but also not progressive enough to make his own ideological input in Soviet communism apart from continuing his predecessor's legacies and policies. Whether it was Pieck, Ulbricht or Brandler, Ponomarenko would not care as long as the USSR is safe and stable.
- Lamberz was a former Nazi. He had joined the Hitler Youth. Kirov would not even like him. Not even Lamberz's parents like their own son (yikes!). If Lamberz was going to climb to the top, there is a need of another factional strife after Pieck vs. Brandler in 1953, maybe in the 1970s (if Lamberz did not die as in OTL).
- --- FirstStooge (talk) 15:25, September 10, 2020 (UTC)
- I think you terribly misunderstood what I meant. When I said "another factional strife", of course that is not about Pieck vs. Brandler. Among other writers here, I am one of several writers who really dislike anything that is not plausible to be written as alternate history. I despise it, just like how I never imagine senile party leaders like Pieck and Brandler will keep fighting as their mentals getting deteriorated. I will never writing something as stupid as that and if you imagine I will do that, please take a note, I will never do that. Borrowing President Friedrich Ebert's words regarding the 1918 German revolution, my attitude about ASB things like that is "I hate it. Even more than I hate sins!".
- What I meant about "another factional strife" is Lamberz is tooooooo adventurous. After Brandler stepped down (look at the year on my East Germany page), of course Apel will doing fine, ascending to the top like no one matters. East Germans hate too much state control, wanting more liberal atmosphere and relaxations from their government, more economic growth and opportunities. If Brandler was open enough to allow the East Germans trade with non-communist nations, then East German economic growth is ensured. Why they would want another ultra-left adventurist or centrist bureaucrat at the top? Only if there is another strong oppositional tendency within the SED can topple Brandler-Apel line. That opposition is what meant by "another factional strife" and it will be in the 1970s.
- Yes, Gysi was a lawyer of dissidents, but he is a communist too. Maybe he will not be too powerful, but that is a very reason I put him as President. President is a ceremonial post in TTL East Germany.
- Yes, independents from different political affiliations are practically free to stand for elections in the GDR (and also other people's democracies) as guaranteed by the socialist laws. However, they can not join the ruling Communist Party since their political affiliations will instantly making them eliminated from the party membership. Factionalism within the ruling party is still communist by nature and only openly debated in official party functions or advocated by civic organizations. Factionalism in elections is dangerous for the ruling party and it will never happens.
- The 1936 Soviet Constitution established a system that everyone is free by principle to register themselves in elections. The candidates then hand-picked by the electoral committees based on their qualifications before put into a single list of candidates. I guess as you are a Vietnamese, you will understand that mechanism. Well, why would this system still appeared in my TL? Because it was proposed by Bukharin, not Stalin. Bukharin was the creator and brain behind the 1936 Constitution. He expanded democratic centralism to elections, barring multi-candidate elections in favor of a single list. Factional democracy like you suggested is inherently vicious and against the very principle of Leninism, even for rightist Bukharinists.
- --- FirstStooge (talk) 16:03, September 11, 2020 (UTC)
He will be a Trotskyist for sure. For me, Trotskyism and Nazism are same at certain level, dangerous for their adventurism. Trotskyists are more dangerous Stalinists for me. If Eastern bloc was turning to be more open, why would the people happy with an adventurist leader at the helm? That will be an open revolt, an early dismantle of Iron Curtain. Sending him as an ambassador is indeed good solution. As Vietnam not a communist nation TTL, I think sending him to India, Burma, Egypt or Sri Lanka is more probable.
If the GDR traded with the FRG more, it will be more as economic integration. That was unlikely, provided a certain ideological tension between the two. The GDR will probably traded more with Italy, Spain or Scandinavia, providing they will be more friendly as left-wing parties were strong in those countries. The GDR can also trading with Japan and China since they are more neutral in conflicts between socialist and capitalist nations.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 17:58, September 12, 2020 (UTC)
Re:Thinking of some reformers in RSR
I think that is depend on your timeline to decide among those three individuals who should ascend to the top of Romanian leadership. All of them are reform-minded enough to make Romanian economy more open and efficient based on the Chinese model of market socialism. Romania is at the periphery of Europe, so that is natural for them to find a balance between the trade with the Soviets as well as with the West. Romania has abundant natural resources at their advantage for the start.
I believe Ceausescu was a human being too with some good humor, although I don't find certain literature referring about his casual personality. He was just an incompetent politician who was senseless enough with the people's suffering and lack of understanding of Marxist economics, not a murderous and barbarous maniac egoistic serial killer. About Elena, Nicolae really loved her, to the point he was a loyal husband who did anything for his wife, including appointing her to important academic and political positions.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 08:42, September 19, 2020 (UTC)
- Felfe will be useful as a collaborator for Apel, although I am not deciding yet what alternative socialist economic models that should be implemented in TTL East Germany about relations between peasants and industries. There are two possibilities:
-
- East Germany started to trade with both Western and socialist countries as in TTL Hungary.
- East Germany has productive lands that abandoned by farmers when they fled to the West due to Stalinist heavy-handedness in OTL. If GDR government focused in rebuilding the agriculture first, emphasizing the agricultural exports with the West especially, then East German peasants will remained loyal to the SED. Collectivization will still happened, but with more gradual persuasions rather than coercions. It is a Bukharinist approach that developed in real life by Nikolai Kondratiev based on Ricardian concept of comparative advantage in which the state get the harvests from peasants either from private farms or agricultural collectives and then import it overseas in exchange of money or industrial goods for industrialization program.
-
- East Germany started to adopt an element of indicative planning based on OTL French dirigisme rather than Soviet model of centralized planning.
- At this point (1953), several small and middle-sized enterprises would remained privately owned rather than nationalized or controlled fully by the state. The GDR government would simply directing the economic activities of this small and middle-sized firms rather than setting a certain production quota. Consumer goods will be produced more and shortages will be avoided. This adoption will be important as East German leaders will increase more economic and technical cooperations with the French government which in return did not wish to see a strong unified Germany and may want a better East Germany to keep it from being absorbed by West Germany.
- Now, why that two models are hard to be chosen in my TL? First model will help East German recovers faster than in TTL and prevent farmers to defect to the West, while second model will help East Germany's position internationally and maintain balance in European geopolitics especially with France which still feared a unified Germany even in the early 1990s in OTL. If France can be swayed to at least recognize there are two Germanies, West Berlin will be handled to GDR as one of Western Allies sides with the GDR, preventing Eastern intellectuals and capable administrators from fleeing to the West.
- If I use the first model, Felfe will not be relevant since he is not a reformer anymore and the Party had already act on agricultural recoveries in the 1950s. If I use the second model, Felfe will be relevant since he will work toward food and agricultural reforms in the GDR in the 1960s and 1970s who had focusing on international recognition and industrial recoveries first. For now, I am not sure which path I will taken first, although I already tilted to the second model.
- Sindermann is a bureaucrat, or a "toady" in Stalin's word. He will be a reformer as long as there is a reform happens.
- I don't know so much Niculescu, but how do I believe he will be more lenient than other Stalinists? People changes when they taste powers.
- Romania will be trading with Vietnam regardless it is a communist state or not in TTL or OTL. Vietnam (and other SEA countries) will a productive market for Romania which pursued independent foreign policy apart from Moscow. So, I guess they will still have their prawn crackers (or kerupuk, as we call it here in Indonesia). How can you even living without prawn crackers, not even Eastern Europeans can resist it LOL XD.
- I am still having a deadlock regarding TTL Vietnam since I want to expand the possibility of Japanese communities there first which can be equal to OTL Chinese communities in Malaysia or Indonesia. However, you bring aforth very good suggestions about specific individuals which will be involved in the Vietnamese politics of the 1960s and the 1970s.
- --- FirstStooge (talk) 16:10, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
Factions in OTL Vietnam
I think the information you have relied on me will be very helpful when I decide to start writing about Vietnam again for my timeline. However, you must also put into some considerations to southern politicians (SVN/RVN) who did not join the Workers' Party/Communist Party. Since the Communist Party is in power in our timeline, there are slightly lesser information about non-communist/anti-communist politicians before the reunification, as ones who gain controls of government also monopolize the truth.
General Giap was a wonderful, passionate anti-capitalist, but also a convinced patriot, so he will be a left-wing nationalist in my timeline, just like how pro-Sukarno politicians in Indonesia who joined center-left parties before and after the New Order, such as the historical PNI and current day PDI-P. With Duy Tan as the figurehead of Vietnamese left instead of Chairman Ho, General Giap may be a royalist at certain time around the 1950s and the 1960s. Giap was indeed a reformist and may have more democratic tendencies in TTL than in OTL.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 10:19, September 28, 2020 (UTC)
Erich Apel
I just want to inform you that your idea about Erich Apel is added for my ATL East Germany. I will expand the idea more in future since I want to alter East Germany more in the 1960s and the 1970s. He will succeed Grotewohl who died in 1964 as East German prime minister, but not as the Politburo leader. Karl Schirdewan will be the overall party leader, the first among equals (primus inter pares) within the Poliburo, but Apel will be in charge of East German economic development until the 1970s. Erich Mielke will be retained for his efficiency as the Stasi chief as the state security should be tightened until the economy developed enough in East Germany.
Also, with the death of Pieck in 1960, there will be a contested presidential election in the Volksversammlungs for the first time since the establishment of GDR in this ATL, rather than the abolition of President as in OTL. My primary candidates for East German President are Friedrich Ebert, Jr. (East Berlin mayor; late Weimar President Friedrich Ebert's son; ex-SPD) and Max Fechner (moderate/liberal; ex-SPD). If you have any suggestion about more candidates who should participate, you can suggest it to me.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 06:08, September 29, 2020 (UTC)
- Zaisser was the East German version of Beria. Even his physiognomy like stated he was cruel and oppressive. Presidency is not for him.
- Rudolf Herrnstadt has no potentials at all.
- Anton Ackermann has the Spanish Civil War (in this TL, Greek Civil War) background and it can helped him a lot in the election.
- Willi Stoph may just a mere party bureaucrat and there is no reason to kill a minor, careerist official like him. Just left him alone.
- I understand why you chose Sibiu. That is a big city with a cosmopolitan nature. Multi-ethnic background of Sibiu may, I am not guarantee it however, influences Nicolae. However, according to holm theory, he will still be a communist, although not a national communist one. He can be like Tito who had opposing national communist tendency in Yugoslavia, especially the Serbian communists. I think he can be more tolerant toward ethnic minorities and less depending on national myth in uniting the population under the communist Romanian banner.
- --- FirstStooge (talk) 17:57, September 29, 2020 (UTC)
- Just a typical Communist-style election. The Presidium of Volksversammlung will presents the candidates chosen by the parties within the legislative chambers. However, it will not be single candidates as any bloc party can present their respective candidates to be elected in the parliamentary voting. I am planning for a GDR President who is from either CDU or LDPD by the 1970s or 1980s which "defeated" official SED presidential candidate in the voting. Direct elections are risky and can be seen as too bourgouisie and against the principle of democratic centralism.
- --- FirstStooge (talk) 05:51, October 1, 2020 (UTC)
Re:Nationalism and Poland
Vietnamese attitude toward the Chinese maybe will be much better in TTL than in ATL. In fact, I want to make anti-Japanese sentiments blossomed in Vietnam with a large number of Japanese-Vietnamese resided since the 16th century. However, anti-Chinese feelings may still occur but more recent contrary to anti-Japanese one. It will make the Vietnamese feel closer to their Southeast Asian neighbours like Thailand or Indonesia rather than other in Sinocentric sphere (China, Japan, etc.).
Nope. I still use Wladyslaw Gomulka in my timeline since he was actually the reformer by the 1950s standard along with Nagy and Brandler. But please take a note that the right-wing faction of European communists are kind of anti-Semitic because they were more populist and nationalist, making them popular with common people. Rakosi and Kun were Jews, so Hungary maybe took anti-Zionist (and anti-Semitic) path too with Nagy. Brandler was more sensitive to the common German citizens who still espoused anti-Semitism. And, Polish communists from Jewish descents had little chance to gain power if Gomulka was still around.
Ochab will be considered a centrist by TTL standard of communism, by no mean a Stalinist like Enver Hoxha or Walter Ulbricht. Remember, he was against Gomulka in the official anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic campaigns in the late of 1960s. His ideology was consistent and I perceive he was a honest and forward-minded man. By today's standard, he is even a progressive, a radical progressive which may head to head with conservative political commentators in Youtube if Ochab was still alive today.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 07:55, October 2, 2020 (UTC)
- Quoted from English Wikipedia page of Ochab:
- "Ochab's and Gomułka's wives were Jewish, but unlike Gomułka, Ochab displayed no tolerance for the antisemitic excesses. To protest the policies pursued in 1967–68 in Poland he decided to resign all of his state and party offices, effectively retiring from political life. He wrote appropriate letters to the Politburo and the Sejm and had a final conversation with Gomułka, Cyrankiewicz and Kliszko. He wrote of the "antisemitic campaign organized by the various reactionary elements, yesterday's phalangists and their today's highly placed protectors" (Mieczysław Moczar's faction in the party). The Politburo accepted his resignation on 8 April and three days later the Sejm replaced Ochab with Marian Spychalski as chairman of the Council of State. General Wojciech Jaruzelski, the armed forces chief of staff, replaced Spychalski as the minister of defense."
- Yes, Gomulka was not a radical like Moczar, but he ignored the excess of anti-Semitic sentiment within the Party which I think he is not a moderate too. Gomulka by this very point was a pragmatic and populist.
- Anti-Semitism was anywhere from villages to big cities, but (surprisingly) was popular among the lower classes, such as workers, farmers and soldiers. France had anti-Semitic sentiment especially after the Dreyfus Affair. It is a very much complex thing which I can not fully explain to you here and now.
- I will keep Gierek too for now since he was a very much natural successor to Gomulka and at least a reformer within the Polish Workers' Party. I need something to do with the independent trade unions in Poland to keep the balance between the Party and the trade unions, perhaps by combining Leninism and syndicalism within unique Polish political system.
- --- FirstStooge (talk) 18:13, October 2, 2020 (UTC)
Re:Rumania
I like your suggestions. However, I want to make the succession process is a bit like in North Korea in 1994. I want to make Ceausescu lived until 1998, when he reached 80 y.o., so he can surpassed the death of his own son. Since there is no North Korea here, I think Ceausescu will going to Yugoslavia's path and made himself "President for Life" just like Tito did to himself. Romania will not be too isolationist, but rather just became a kind of international pariah, combination of OTL Belarus and Libya, too independent and too authoritarian even in this TL's Soviet socialist standard.
Stefan Andrei and Valentin Ceausescu will ruled the country as a duumvirate (or maybe a triumvirate with another individual) during first five years after Nicolae's death. Then, a power struggle ensued between Stefan and Valentin. Valentin can led Romania into a bit of OTL Syria, allying with some Third World countries to increase its own prestige. Romanian economy will remained an orthodox socialist economy, with nationalized ownership of important industrial sectors and traditional trade with other Eastern Bloc states. However, small-scale liberalization occurred just right after Nicolae's death, creating a number of rich oligarchs in increasingly independent private sectors. Certain aspects of East German socialist dirigisme were and are still adopted by this Romania to save its own economy. Imagine Syria, but placed right to Russia. That is TTL Romania.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a good recommendation. But, Andrei and Niculescu-Mizil will be subordinated later to Ceausescu Jr. when the latter consolidated his grip on the party and the state, but retained their respective posts until their deaths.
- Yes, it will be a directive planning based on input-output balances in industrial production and balance of trade in international trade. Collectivization, however, will be retained in most of Romania in order to control the food price, especially with agricultural imports from Hungary and Asia.
- --- FirstStooge (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Re:Another one
Grosz will be pretty much a transitional figure like in OTL, but he would served in smoothing the transition from market socialism to free-market economy without shock therapy on economy implemented by post-communist Hungarian government in real life. I think it need about five years of transition period for privatization in Hungary without upsetting existing social and political structure, akin of China under Deng Xiaoping.
Jaruzelski should stayed away from the country's leadership. He made it worse and was responsible in dismantling Communist rule in Poland faster than expected because of the shift of sympathy toward Walesa's Solidarity. The Workers' Party was supposed to coopt with the rise of independent trade unions by power-sharing arrangement so there would be a co-determination on economy between the state and the trade unions.
Yakemenko is an ideologue in OTL and an central figure on the creation of Putinism. In OTL, he combined nostalgic feeling on the Soviet Union with Russian nationalism, projecting modern Russia as a continuation of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union at the same time. He is the most brilliant politician of his generation and I can not see why he should simply staying at the background and not at the helm of Soviet Union itself.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
What I have realized from what you have implied is Yakemenko can use the Komsomol as his power base just like Mao used the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution. I think that would make him a bit of more populist compared to Nazarbayev. Nazarbayev would be on the liberal side of the party leaders on TTL if we judge him by the standard of TTL Soviet Union. He will be more permissive but still authoritarian at the same time, depending more on traditional party machine compared with Yakemenko who is gearing up the grassroot supports with his populism. Yakemenko will be seen as a refreshing Trump-like figure for the Soviet peoples who have fed enough with their old-styled AUCP leaders, in which the implication for my ATL Soviet Union is both good and scary at the same time. It will be good for the Soviet peoples for having a leader who is hearing their worries, but it will be scary since Yakemenko will be transformed into a Soviet version of Trump. Yakemenko can dragging the Soviet Union into open conflict with the West, akin of China versus the United States in recent years.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a Western proverb: "Do not count our chickens before they hatch." Liberalization under Kirov does not guarantee what happens to OTL today Russia is not repeated or not happened to TTL USSR. Anything can be butterflied away as time progresses because USSR is a "no-man land" in my althistory narrative. There is no guarantee internet will be more open, especially as we know that early version of real-life internet was built/developed by the Soviet scientists for the need of efficient central planning. Soviet internet on my timeline will resembles to Chinese, but never North Korean or Cuban, network layout in real life.
P.S. After a long consideration, I will grant you a permission to translate my alternate histories in Cherry, Plum, and Chrysanthemum to Vietnamese or any language to any site outside our community if you will whether soon or in future as long as I still get credited as the original writer.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Permission, Internet
That is fine. But, feel free if you want to translate my timeline anytime since you have my permission from now on.
That is right. The Soviets will be very limited or censored on political issues, but another aspects such as entertainment, culture or games are flourished with the development of internet. In fact, e-currency was proposed for the first time in the USSR since theoretically there is no money under communism. So, the Soviet may developed it first before Bitcoin existed.
Yes, OGAS will be a foundation of Soviet internet and will playing a large part in its economy since the USSR retained central planning in the 1980s before transitioned to indicative one. But, technical limitation will remains an issue in the 1980s and 1990s and probably need of cooperation with foreign technicians in developing it.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
In this case, you are mistaken. Cold War in this timeline is actually as tense as in real life, just going into different direction. Possibility of a World War III is still exist in my timeline with Japan playing decisive part in the world political balance.
The only way the British can help the cybernetic researches in the USSR is by making it more academic. You see in real life there a bunch of Soviet bureaucrats who feared new technology because it will taken away their power in making economic decisions. Using computers in a planned economy will be very much experimental. At the same time, the British government under Wilson and Thatcher (just like in OTL) will be very wary of importing knowledge and findings of computer researches to the Soviets, who they suspected will turn it into military technology.
I do not think Armenian earthquake issue will be tainted so much with changing Soviet economic system. Real disaster in Armenia that time was bad urban planning, not simply the Soviet government did not have enough money.
Eastern Bloc economies, yes, will be very much diverse and specialized (including non-communist Finland and Bulgaria). There will a partially-free trade between Eastern Bloc, Western Bloc and Asian bloc countries, or at least a trade exchange between all nations.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is probable but only in the early years of computer networks. Minitel will probably cooperated with East Germany to provide cheap labour and manufactured computer parts. However, I predict there will be a convergence between three systems (OGAS, Internet, Minitel) in the 1990s when the Soviet Union improved relations with Western countries. World wide web will still happened, but each government-related network will extant, especially OGAS.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Illyria
While I agree with the rest of your points, I have different opinion in regard my TTL Illyria. There are non-communist Serbia and Albania surrounded Titoist Illyria in my timeline, so they would not be too independent from the Soviet bloc as in OTL. Titoism and self-management economy will remained, but in foreign policy Illyria needs to stick to the USSR in order prevent attacks from Serbia and Albania. Pan-Balkan Federation proposal and Stalin as in OTL were not a thing here, so there will be no reason for Tito to split drastically from Kirov and the Soviet party.
Like East Germany and Czechoslovakia, Illyria will be a sort of Potemkin village for the Communist bloc in Eastern Europe. They will be less controlled and at least be cultivated in pursuing a market-like economic system with existing trade with the West. They will have more freedoms than others, such as Romania, Hungary or Poland, or maybe even East Austria.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Please, stay tune:
Soviet Union (Cherry, Plum, and Chrysanthemum)#Charkviani-Kosygin reforms (1960−1980)
--- FirstStooge (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Re:Japanophobia (and other things also)
I think it will be a pretty complicated issue. First, you are correct, there will a social preference by the Vietnamese to choose which one is more favorable in their perspective: Japanese or Chinese. The Vietnamese will tend more toward the Japanese because the Nguyens will still be dominated by the Chinese in TTL. Cultural animosity toward the Chinese will be stronger than to the Japanese (although the Japanese is far more crueler and militaristic). But, there is modern Japan with a lot of influence over Vietnam too in this TTL. Japanophobia, or at least anti-Japanese sentiment, will be very strong among left-wing Vietnamese nationalists and communists as Japan is an ideological adversary of the Soviet Union.
I just read about Vo. I think he is little bit pragmatic and kind of nationalist, yes, like Yakemenko. He still has no equal personality to Yakemenko though. I don't think there will be any Asian form of communism since there is no Mao Zedong and most of communist parties will instead turn guerilla or become fringe political parties (although Indonesia maybe a little exception soon). It is quite complicated to explain to you how hard to create "Asian Communism" with Mao, but in short it needed a strong Communist government between pro-Japanese countries.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but there will be one tiny problem here: there is no Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, so there will be no Eurocommunism. Ideological splits like Eurocommunism or Maoism were the results of political fighting among post-Stalinist communist states. The problem is there is no Stalin in my timeline, so Eurocommunism or Maoism, or even liberal Asian form of communism, will be butterflied away.
Anyway, Asian societies are not like European ones. Eurocommunism was born from liberal and individualist tendencies of Western European nations. Asian nations are not liberal but always paternalistic. That is why Deng Xiaoping's form of communism is pretty much popular in China or like Ho Chi Minh's version in Vietnam. Asian communism can not develops into a liberal form by its own, not even without Communist China, which absent in my althistory.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I can not guarantee you based the canonical development of my timeline. Lets we see in the future if that is plausible since Marxism alone is very Westernized idea at the very start, so Asian communism will be very much paternalistic if it split from European one.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Re:Yes and 80's leadership
Actually, Charkviani and Andropov were still in charge after Kosygin's death. But, you are correct, the balance was tipped to more conservatives like Kirilenko. Charkviani remained a liberal, while Andropov became increasingly conservative. At some point, younger politicians would arose, such as Gorbachev (no, he would not in charge of the country), Romanov, etc.
I think the same case will happens to GDR, where Kleiber and Felfe would be sat side by side at the Politburo. Stoph will serves as a balancing figure between Felfe, who is the de facto Politburo leader, and Kleiber. I think this balance is important to maintain since internal party democracy matters in the SED. Stoph will be a fringe figure during the 1960s, but eventually played key part in decision making whether he will side with Kleiber or Felfe in the Politburo voting.
I want to put Muller too in important position too since he would not persecuted and sidelined as in OTL. I do not think being a Prime Minister is befitted him, maybe a Deputy Prime-Minister and also a Minister of Defense portfolio. He was a poor Communist loyalist who are suspected because of his past Wehrmacht background, so I think he will be played more part in TTL.
--- FirstStooge (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Putting Gorbachev in the charge of Moscow will also helping to prevent Yeltsin's rise of power. It will bring reforms to Moscow and the Russian SFSR, while at the same time avoiding a certain potential independent-minded politician like Yeltsin to grow political base there. And, yes, there will be Romanov to balance Gorbachev and Nazarbayev among younger members of the Poliburo. Ryzhvkov will be pretty much a technocrat, a quieter version of Kosygin, a sort of brain of younger members and the later leadership in the 1990s.
I think Yakovlev will be good driving force along with Gorbachev and Ryzhkov in pushing Nazarbayev to pursue more liberal economic reforms, while others such as Lukashenko can balance as conservative voices within the Politburo. Putin's influence will be very much limited until he rose to the Politburo by the end of 1990s, especially as he will be the KGB chief. It will be Putin who played a "devil's advocate" to Nazarbayev as more liberal, older leaders started to retire one by one. At the end, Putin will be (as in OTL) a political mentor to younger Yakemenko.
But I am intrigued right now to put Putin in charge of the Premiership and push Yakemenko's rise to power ten year from now on. --- FirstStooge (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Re:Translation
I got it, so it will be:
- Quân đội Quốc gia Việt Nam - Vietnamese National Army
- Lục quân - Ground force
- Hải quân - Navy
- Không quân - Air force
I do not agree with Putin being a sort of Deng. Personality-wise, Putin loves being portrayed as a macho man in OTL and makes decision by himself. With his KGB background, I think he is more closer to Andropov's style rather than Deng's. Charkviani's (or Deng's) style could only be duplicated by Nazarbayev, since he did not develop excessive cult of personality like other Central Asian autocrats.
If Putin replaces Nazarbayev, that will be an overturn from timid state propaganda (we can use China during Hu Jintao's era or recent-day Vietnam) into more excessive media portrayals of a strong leadership whether by Putin himself or with the Politburo at the whole. I think the Soviet citizens will rather choose a leader like him in reminder of Sergei Kirov, a Stalinist in a Stalin-less world.
I agree with your composition on the Politburo, but do you have any suggestion who will be the modern-day Trotskyists and Bukharinists since both Trotsky and Bukharin did not get executed or killed in TTL? I think a composition on the Politburo, frankly said, like between liberals vs. conservatives vs. ultra-conservatives (Trotskyist) vs. ultra-liberal (Bukharinist) will be interesting. --- FirstStooge (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Limonov...wow, he is really an interesting character. If Trotskyism is considered as a sheer fanaticism combined with a certain degree of radical advocacy of social justice, then indeed Limonov is its foremost personality. He embodied something...I don't know how to word it...madness, I assume? Trotskyism is like a religion, a cult, in its practice so someone who is mad enough is really befitted to it.
Like Trotsky, I see Limonov will be a trouble-making personality at the TTL Soviet Union, a voice of opposition to the ruling Politburo. My goodness, adding him to any timeline, not only mine, will be very quiet interesting development. Expect me making something interesting at a near future. --- FirstStooge (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Kim Il-sung
Months ago, I made some notes abput alternate destiny for several people or politicians in OTL. I realized that since Korea in my TL was butterflied away hardly, the fate of Kim' s dynasty is also butterflied. i have seen so many althistory put Kim Il-sung and his descendants lives in alternate Korea, but honestly there is no way he would ever return to Korea without Soviet occupation after World War II.
Kim was portrayed as anti-Japanese guerilla in his official biography who fought mainly in China. But in reality, we know that he served as a soldier at the Soviet Red Army. He also identified himself more as a Chinese rather than a Korean at his point.
In your opinion, what would happened to Kim Il-sung if he still served as Red Army soldier? Will he climbed the social ladder and later served as a high-ranking member of Soviet Communist Party leadership or will he stayed obscure as in pre-war OTL? --- FirstStooge (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers. I do not think he will be living in obscurity. Option #1 and #2 will be probable, but the second one will be more probable than the first. I think of making him at least as a member of Russian SFSR government or a medium-level minister at the Union government. The head of state of Russian SFSR is also a probability for Kim Il-sung. --- FirstStooge (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm thinking hard how to save Kim's career. By what you have mentioned, he was indeed having a good prestige as a guerilla partisan commander. So, it will put him highly, at least favorably, during the era of Panteleimon Ponomarenko. Ponomarenko, like Kim, was the partisan leader at Belarus during the war. So, he will viewed Kim more as a comrade-in-arms as well as a potential ally. The problem is how to save Kim in the 1960s. His career would be over if Ponomarenko resigned in 1961. Should be he has a purpose to be retained by Charkviani or Andropov so he at least stayed in the government and became an alternate member of the Politburo instead? --- FirstStooge (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Now, it is actually a very good suggestion. I would like to talk more about it with you after I finish my loadings of works in real-life. I will message you back quickly after that is done and I recover a bit. --- FirstStooge (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it will be fine to put Kim Il-sung to foreign trade, especially since he spoke Chinese (more fluent even than his Korean, when he served at the Krasnaya Armii). He can be in charge of industrial relations between the USSR and China, or maybe Japan. With such position, Kim is possibly a supporter of rapprochement between the Communist and the Pan-Asian blocs, especially with Nosaka Sanzo at the helm of Japanese government.
I do not think Kim Jong-il will follow his father's step. He was indeed a power-hungry leader when he served. But, initially, Jong-il was more interested in art, especially filmmaking. He can use his relational power to advance his career in the Soviet filming industry, maybe at its bureaucracy, but will never interested in decision-making of Party politics. Well, yes, he will not be a liberal, but rather more moderate conservative due to his cultural background. But, he really loved Hollywood films, so he would not have too much anti-Western rambling, actually. Rather, Jong-il may be the one who can propose the imports of Western television series to the Soviet television and vice versa. His step-brother, Pyong-il, however, was the one who more interested in the political matter like Kim Il-sung, despite his apparently womanizing behavior in the 1970s. --- FirstStooge (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I will write it down at my Soviet Union page soon. --- FirstStooge (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that we should refer Kim Jong-il with Yuri Kim from now on. To call him 'Yuri' making him less menacing for me lol. Yuri can be positioned as a leading member of USSR Union of Cinematographers. Maybe he would used his political connection to lead the body, but would never climbed to the top of Party leadership by himself. A sort of 'soft cronyism' thing, you know.
As Yavlinsky's rise to power came after Yuri's appointment per the canon of my timeline, it will be a conflict between two figures. Yuri will be a proponent of lavish and extravagance film production, while Yavlinsky will be a supporter of strict austerity in filmmaking. If Yuri remained at the top of Union leadership, it would pushed the Soviet filmmakers to learn Hollywood-style (or its alternate version's) cinematography and open for American investment for the Soviet movie productions, similar with China at the recent period. --- FirstStooge (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I believe you are right. Yuri will have a position at the Central Committee, given his position as the head of Union of Cinematographers. Anyway, I did not realize that we just wrote down a situation where Kim Jong-il will playing major role in the liberalization of USSR entertainment industry in the 1990s. I had expected more about his father's work in TTL, but suddenly I found Kim Jong-il's position implied more interesting and more plausible scenario which fitting with current narrative of this TL. --- FirstStooge (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
VAZ, Central Television and Committee of Popular Opinion
I have wrote down your idea about Yuri Kim, the Soviet New Wave and VAZ, although it is not developed further yet (it will in the early 2000s). It is quite good! Perhaps separate pages will be needed in future for some greater details. I think the idea about New Wave is quiet plausible because due to some ironic facts that in OTL, Kim Jong-il had some good taste on Western things despite NK's OTL official stance against the US.
You are totally correct about the travel freedom. With the Soviet Union warmed its relations with several Asian (especially Middle East) nations, I can see the travel restriction will be lifted and the Soviet students would be sent to some Third World countries, such as India, Indonesia, Malaya, Egypt and Libya. When liberalization under Nazarbayev came, the freedom will be extended first to Western Europe and then the United States. Regardless, the travels to Third World nations will be officially encouraged under anti-colonial foreign policy. Nazarbayev's Muslim cultural background will be also helpful in strengthening the Soviet relations with socialist Arab nations.
The State Committee of Popular Opinion is a bit dangerous during this period. If such body was created during the most liberal era at the Soviet history, dissident voices will growing stronger and it will be a Soviet Tiananmen by the middle of 1990s. With a Tiananmen happened, liberalization process will be halted before the 2000s. I think it is best to have popular demonstrations and mild degree of criticisms to the Party and the government occurred after the 2000s instead when the leadership has become older and newer individuals are needed, but the Soviet government has much grounded and stable unlike during the OTL Gorbachev era. --- FirstStooge (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
When I adopted Democratic Afghanistan, I am sure there are one or two things will be getting obsolete there by the virtue of QSS and QAA principles, so it will be a lot of scenarios will be plausible to create cooperation/ceasefire between the Afghan communists and the Mujahideens.
I beg to differ with what you believe as 'liberal' on the Soviet leadership on my timeline. Even though they liberalized/relaxed their society, it does not means the Soviet leaders would weaken their own international standings, especially among its sister parties in Eastern Europe (the Second World). Even in OTL, the relationship between East and West was pretty tumultuous in the 1960s to 1980s.
One day Khrushchev visited an exhibition in the United States and debated with Nixon, then had heated diplomatic exchanges due to Cuba, almost pushing the world into another world war. Later, Brezhnev and Nixon sit and drank together after signing an agreement, then it got heated again due to Afghanistan. There was a dynamic relationship between two powers, which can not be written with oversimplification ("Soviet liberalized? Oh, it must means there will be no Cold War").
China today is by standard is liberal compared to its Maoist days or even to Cultural Revolution period. Are the relationship between China and the United States is always harmonious? Well, not so. It is very complicated to say.
I have no intention to introduce stock exchange to the USSR before the 1990s, because the USSR had a lot of things to experiment to rather than simply accepted capitalistic or quasi-capitalistic system into its society. The invasion of Afghanistan, the death of Kosygin as well as international isolation after the embargo are the very reasons of Stagnation in the 1980s and the rise of younger technocrats in the 1990s.
It is during this embargo, the USSR would eventually turned to the Japanese bloc (the actual protagonist of my timeline is still Japan), which consists of Japan, China, Manchuria and Korea (possibly the Philippines and Moroland too). Here, Irsen Kim would be entered into the story. He can served as an intermediate for foreign trade with East Asian nations to bypass the trade restrictions from the USA and her allies. The concept of "free trade agreement" is not very socialistic I believe, so it will not be called that by the USSR.
I am not sure about the population growth for 2020. Is not a developed nation has slowed growth rate compared to a developing one? There are 291 million people in the Soviet Union in 1990, almost similar with the American population of 250 millions. By 2020, there are about 330 millions of American population, which meant an addition of 80 millions from 1990.
For the Soviet Union, I believe it will be lower than 450 millions by 2020, perhaps around 380-410 millions, but never exceeded that, with Central Asian Muslims will become the fastest growing population among the Soviet people. It will be interesting, because nationalistic attitude will eventually arose among the Russians who felt they are outnumbered due to lower birth rates (yes, it happened in OTL with the creation of Nashi, the rise of Yakemenko, etc.).
--- FirstStooge (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Torturous week
Sorry for a very belated reply. This week is really torturous for me. There is a hassle at my real-life work up until this Sunday morning. I have tried to finish all of my works before the end of this year and prepare myself for new job next year. I did read your message, but can not stay at the wiki for a longer time other than doing my maintenance duty. Anyway, let me start answering your message.
- Virgin Lands campaign is a bit tricky to discuss. It was a good program because it fed so many people in aftermath of famines in the 1930s and the war in the 1940s. It had also developed Central Asian agricultural economy. But, irrigation was indeed problematic. There is indeed an alternative for Aral Sea water irrigation, but it will be also as disastrous as Aral water usage for farming for its climatic consequences. I need further study for this project for re-filling of Aral Sea.
- Military modernization will be followed up the 1990s reforms. The USSR needed advanced military technologies if they want to be in equal footing with the United States. He should won the 1982 debates and elevated to the Defense Ministry in order the reform to be implemented, especially after the invasion of Afghanistan. Relaxation on conscription policy, however, should be approached carefully in aftermath so the Soviet can maintain a large military reserve despite military reforms as a compromise.
- Factional fighting is natural for internal democracy within the Party. However, I believe without Stalin there will be a sort of 'princelings' within the Soviet Communist Party. In addition to the technocrats and the Komsomolets, the princeling faction will be an interesting element to the Soviet politics. Factionalism will be more complex because not only the members are divided into ideological tendencies (Bukharinist, Kirovist, Trotskyist, Kamenevian, Zinovievist) or geographical locations (Leningrad, Moscow, Caucasus), but also from their professional and family backgrounds (technocrat, Komsomolet, princeling).
Do not worry about my sleeping time. I am sleeping mostly at the morning lol. --- FirstStooge (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Sablin, Jacobinism and Trotskyism
Well, I have just read about Sablin in Wikipedia and found it is interesting that there is a dissident action against Brezhnev which close enough to a military coup in the Soviet history. Well, Cher, I am afraid he is not a libertarian or liberal of any sort as you have mentioned. What is written about him at Wikipedia that says he wanted to “rid the Communist Party of sycophants and corrupt elements” is remind me of Maoism or Trotskyism.
What I have studied about Communism is that Stalinism is all about power and ideological supremacy while Trotskyism is all about devotion and ideological purity. Sablin's view on the party purification can be considered either Stalinist or Trotskyist, but as mentioned at Wikipedia that he was "convinced that a revolutionary consciousness will catch fire among our people" showed his Jacobin tendency.
Jacobinism of French Revolution and Trotskyism of Russian Revolution are same in their ideological conviction. They wanted to rid class enemies as well as party careerists for the sake of pure ideology, pure idealism. They flexed out in the power of collectives for drastic and thorough changes, rather than for the rights of individuals. Sablin was not a liberal; he is a hardliner, a purist hardliner, who was not even Andropov will likes him. This kind of man, if he was given leadership position, will arose to be a second Trotsky.
He would not be protected, of course, by Charkviani if the coup still happened but it will be interesting if he had restrained himself from doing any radical measure against Charkviani's liberalization and entered politics himself. He could leading the Trotskyist tradition within the Party and an out-spoken critic and opposition figure to counter-balance Charkviani and Andropov. --- FirstStooge (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Since I am now in the middle of studying post-revolutionary France, I can understand your point about Saint-Just. Men like him, Trotsky, etc are everywhere across the history.
- By the way, I have joined Discord now. My Discord tag is FirstStooge#0714. You can ask and discuss me further there from now on. --- FirstStooge (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Stirling Award nomination
|
You've been nominated | |
| I'm happy to tell you that you've been nominated as this wiki's Best New Contributor in the 2021 Stirling Awards. Voting is open through January 25. Voting is open through January 25. |
Benkarnell (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Re:Some reminder
Looking at the past events when China and the DPRK used cyberwarfare to their advantages, well the answer is yes. The USSR will also doing the same thing, especially to the US. Younger generations of computer literates in the USSR will be employed in the cyber-defense sector, but at the same time will be used to develop newest technologies to hack the world web network.
I have not yet finding a pirated version of the book. But, I do having interests on that field. Do you have any ebook copy of it? --- FirstStooge (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
DD Reviews, etc
The goal is to discuss the page before changing it, and to (hopefully) change it as little as possible. You kinda flipped the whole thing to the opposite there, imo. Lordganon (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to keep writing your ideas so that they can be discussed. We need an alternative version so that we can talk about what to change and what to keep. And many aspects of Vietnam make it one of the least plausible countries in the timeline, certainly one of the worst in Asia, so that review is important. False Dmitri (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
PS, here's the official welcome message.
|
False Dmitri (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Adopting Cambodia
Hi, I've adopted Cambodia on the Doomsday 1983 timeline, and as I understand you have overseen Vietnam I would like to discuss making sure that our timelines match up, particulraly in regards to the People's Republic of Kampuchea being at war with Vietnam which I feel is completely out of place from our Timeline. I just want to make sure oure South East Asian timelines match up. HumplebyH (talk) 22:01, December 12th, 2021 (UTC)
Re:Well...
Like what I have said in the server, it is probable that I will take some times from the wiki. So, my timeline will be left unedited for a while. It is just I have some mental exhaustion as well as busy offline life, but I promise I will return again to take care my own timeline. --FirstStooge (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)