2008 Pacific States To 1958

[mullauna]

Zyobot, stevep, What happens if the Soviets panic?

[stevep]

Aug 26, 2019 6:27:15 GMT mullauna said:

Zyobot , stevep , What happens if the Soviets panic?

  Depends on how you define panic.  Could be anything from a return to Lenin/Stalin type excesses and hunkering down, bitter infighting between assorted groups, an attack on western Europe to try and make use of their strength before 08 technology and knowledge undermines that or goes nuclear.  Suspect you mean one of the last two.

a)  In a largely conventional war in Europe, probably using chemicals but assuming no nukes, then the Soviets are likely to overrun Germany and the Low countries and possibly Italy as well depending on how quickly they can get through Austria and the Alps.  Very likely France as well which would make supplying Italy very difficult and whether the allies could keep them out of Iberia, which would mean an awkward alliance with Franco would be up in the air.  Assuming no one goes  nuke then after a prolonged war the Soviets are driven back and possibly their regime is forced to collapse. - Nearly assumed that their nuclear forces would prevent the allies going into eastern Europe then remembered that they don't have ballistic nukes yet.  By the latter stages of a war they wouldn't have much of an air force either, especially given what the 2008 US could bring to the war given a bit of time.  In short most of Europe gets heavily trashed and a lot of people die.

b)  In the latter just about everybody dies. 

[Zyobot]

Aug 26, 2019 10:01:40 GMT stevep said:

Aug 26, 2019 6:27:15 GMT mullauna said:

Zyobot , stevep , What happens if the Soviets panic?

  Depends on how you define panic.  Could be anything from a return to Lenin/Stalin type excesses and hunkering down, bitter infighting between assorted groups, an attack on western Europe to try and make use of their strength before 08 technology and knowledge undermines that or goes nuclear.  Suspect you mean one of the last two.

a)  In a largely conventional war in Europe, probably using chemicals but assuming no nukes, then the Soviets are likely to overrun Germany and the Low countries and possibly Italy as well depending on how quickly they can get through Austria and the Alps.  Very likely France as well which would make supplying Italy very difficult and whether the allies could keep them out of Iberia, which would mean an awkward alliance with Franco would be up in the air.  Assuming no one goes  nuke then after a prolonged war the Soviets are driven back and possibly their regime is forced to collapse. - Nearly assumed that their nuclear forces would prevent the allies going into eastern Europe then remembered that they don't have ballistic nukes yet.  By the latter stages of a war they wouldn't have much of an air force either, especially given what the 2008 US could bring to the war given a bit of time.  In short most of Europe gets heavily trashed and a lot of people die.

b)  In the latter just about everybody dies. 

Erm, wouldn't launching a conventional war to take Europe run contrary to their best interests since the 2008 Pacific States are able to lend their expertise and of course, military assets to fighting back? If the USSR didn't go that far IOTL 1958, why would it be good for them to do so with uptimer Americans now involved?

[stevep]

Aug 27, 2019 15:57:15 GMT Zyobot said:

Aug 26, 2019 10:01:40 GMT stevep said:

  Depends on how you define panic.  Could be anything from a return to Lenin/Stalin type excesses and hunkering down, bitter infighting between assorted groups, an attack on western Europe to try and make use of their strength before 08 technology and knowledge undermines that or goes nuclear.  Suspect you mean one of the last two.

a)  In a largely conventional war in Europe, probably using chemicals but assuming no nukes, then the Soviets are likely to overrun Germany and the Low countries and possibly Italy as well depending on how quickly they can get through Austria and the Alps.  Very likely France as well which would make supplying Italy very difficult and whether the allies could keep them out of Iberia, which would mean an awkward alliance with Franco would be up in the air.  Assuming no one goes  nuke then after a prolonged war the Soviets are driven back and possibly their regime is forced to collapse. - Nearly assumed that their nuclear forces would prevent the allies going into eastern Europe then remembered that they don't have ballistic nukes yet.  By the latter stages of a war they wouldn't have much of an air force either, especially given what the 2008 US could bring to the war given a bit of time.  In short most of Europe gets heavily trashed and a lot of people die.

b)  In the latter just about everybody dies. 

Erm, wouldn't launching a conventional war to take Europe run contrary to their best interests since the 2008 Pacific States are able to lend their expertise and of course, military assets to fighting back? If the USSR didn't go that far IOTL 1958, why would it be good for them to do so with uptimer Americans now involved?

  Agreed it wouldn't be that wise but it might be seen by Moscow as the best option.  While the US is distracted by the PS appearing make a quick grab for W Germany at least then hope/expect that the west would be unwilling to fight a long war to get it back or risk a full scale nuclear exchange.  Given them more resources and a prestige victory before the weight of the PS technology and knowledge comes into play.  Since the PS are 50 years more advanced, plus the knowledge they will bring including the news that the Soviet empire will fall there is going to be a pressure to do something and that could result in something very rash.

  Can't remember if the west was still in tripwire stance at the time, with relatively few forces in central Europe so could be a hell of a risk but would mean they could crush resistance on the ground very quickly.  France isn't a nuclear power yet so they can try and drive into France as well.  Holding pretty much all the continent could look a useful boost.

  Apart from the reaction of their fellow down-timers in the west since nuclear deterrents is still based largely on bombers at this point and I don't think they had any ICBMs yet their plan could fall apart quickly.  Once the western powers start building up air power, especially with the addition of the PSs and the Soviet forces could find their deterrent gone and the allies in a position to start using nukes to force a surrender.

[Zyobot]

Aug 28, 2019 8:29:27 GMT stevep said:

Aug 27, 2019 15:57:15 GMT Zyobot said:

Erm, wouldn't launching a conventional war to take Europe run contrary to their best interests since the 2008 Pacific States are able to lend their expertise and of course, military assets to fighting back? If the USSR didn't go that far IOTL 1958, why would it be good for them to do so with uptimer Americans now involved?

  Agreed it wouldn't be that wise but it might be seen by Moscow as the best option.  While the US is distracted by the PS appearing make a quick grab for W Germany at least then hope/expect that the west would be unwilling to fight a long war to get it back or risk a full scale nuclear exchange.  Given them more resources and a prestige victory before the weight of the PS technology and knowledge comes into play.  Since the PS are 50 years more advanced, plus the knowledge they will bring including the news that the Soviet empire will fall there is going to be a pressure to do something and that could result in something very rash.

  Can't remember if the west was still in tripwire stance at the time, with relatively few forces in central Europe so could be a hell of a risk but would mean they could crush resistance on the ground very quickly.  France isn't a nuclear power yet so they can try and drive into France as well.  Holding pretty much all the continent could look a useful boost.

  Apart from the reaction of their fellow down-timers in the west since nuclear deterrents is still based largely on bombers at this point and I don't think they had any ICBMs yet their plan could fall apart quickly.  Once the western powers start building up air power, especially with the addition of the PSs and the Soviet forces could find their deterrent gone and the allies in a position to start using nukes to force a surrender.

Mm'kay. A rather early time after the ISOT for war to potentially start, but mm'kay. For the sake of preventing the Cold War from becoming a hot one for at least the time being, is there any way to dissuade the USSR from launching a rash invasion of Western Europe while the US is preoccupied with the 2008 Pacific States?

[stevep]

Aug 28, 2019 16:01:45 GMT Zyobot said:

Aug 28, 2019 8:29:27 GMT stevep said:

  Agreed it wouldn't be that wise but it might be seen by Moscow as the best option.  While the US is distracted by the PS appearing make a quick grab for W Germany at least then hope/expect that the west would be unwilling to fight a long war to get it back or risk a full scale nuclear exchange.  Given them more resources and a prestige victory before the weight of the PS technology and knowledge comes into play.  Since the PS are 50 years more advanced, plus the knowledge they will bring including the news that the Soviet empire will fall there is going to be a pressure to do something and that could result in something very rash.

  Can't remember if the west was still in tripwire stance at the time, with relatively few forces in central Europe so could be a hell of a risk but would mean they could crush resistance on the ground very quickly.  France isn't a nuclear power yet so they can try and drive into France as well.  Holding pretty much all the continent could look a useful boost.

  Apart from the reaction of their fellow down-timers in the west since nuclear deterrents is still based largely on bombers at this point and I don't think they had any ICBMs yet their plan could fall apart quickly.  Once the western powers start building up air power, especially with the addition of the PSs and the Soviet forces could find their deterrent gone and the allies in a position to start using nukes to force a surrender.

Mm'kay. A rather early time after the ISOT for war to potentially start, but mm'kay. For the sake of preventing the Cold War from becoming a hot one for at least the time being, is there any way to dissuade the USSR from launching a rash invasion of Western Europe while the US is preoccupied with the 2008 Pacific States?

  The only way of influencing it I can see would be a stick and carrot approach -saying that the US, including the PS would accept the Yalta agreement and the division of Europe - although that might be hard for many ib the PS especially to swallow.  Subtly leaving unsaid that if they did do something stupid, like invade western Europe, the gloves would come off.  Of course whether the Americans realise this warning is necessary and whether the Soviets would heed such a message is another factor.

  On the plus side the Soviets are led by Khrushchev, who is somewhat more moderate that his successors in relations with the west.  Plus possibly some information could be passed to him on how he was deposed in 1963 which might lead to a clearing out which keeps the Soviets busy.

  The problem is that the news of the fall of the Soviet Union and spread of democracy to most of eastern Europe while welcome to most people is going to be very destablising and how those in power in the east accept it and what they think they can do to prevent it is difficult to tell.

[Zyobot]

Aug 28, 2019 16:22:21 GMT stevep said:

Aug 28, 2019 16:01:45 GMT Zyobot said:

Mm'kay. A rather early time after the ISOT for war to potentially start, but mm'kay. For the sake of preventing the Cold War from becoming a hot one for at least the time being, is there any way to dissuade the USSR from launching a rash invasion of Western Europe while the US is preoccupied with the 2008 Pacific States?

  The only way of influencing it I can see would be a stick and carrot approach -saying that the US, including the PS would accept the Yalta agreement and the division of Europe - although that might be hard for many ib the PS especially to swallow.  Subtly leaving unsaid that if they did do something stupid, like invade western Europe, the gloves would come off.  Of course whether the Americans realise this warning is necessary and whether the Soviets would heed such a message is another factor.

  On the plus side the Soviets are led by Khrushchev, who is somewhat more moderate that his successors in relations with the west.  Plus possibly some information could be passed to him on how he was deposed in 1963 which might lead to a clearing out which keeps the Soviets busy.

  The problem is that the news of the fall of the Soviet Union and spread of democracy to most of eastern Europe while welcome to most people is going to be very destablising and how those in power in the east accept it and what they think they can do to prevent it is difficult to tell.

Alright, then. I take it that the Americans would promise to continue to honor the Yalta Agreement so long as the USSR makes good choices, rather than hash out a new deal with them?

On N. Khrushchev being a moderate, I wonder if that'd translate to economic pragmatism once he finds out the OTL future fate of Soviet Russia (i.e. borrowing from Deng Xiaoping's playbook and implementing semi-capitalistic reforms himself). Of course, the cat-meritocrat himself is probably toast with Chairman Mao still in charge of the PRC .

[stevep]

Aug 28, 2019 16:40:36 GMT Zyobot said:

Aug 28, 2019 16:22:21 GMT stevep said:

  The only way of influencing it I can see would be a stick and carrot approach -saying that the US, including the PS would accept the Yalta agreement and the division of Europe - although that might be hard for many ib the PS especially to swallow.  Subtly leaving unsaid that if they did do something stupid, like invade western Europe, the gloves would come off.  Of course whether the Americans realise this warning is necessary and whether the Soviets would heed such a message is another factor.

  On the plus side the Soviets are led by Khrushchev, who is somewhat more moderate that his successors in relations with the west.  Plus possibly some information could be passed to him on how he was deposed in 1963 which might lead to a clearing out which keeps the Soviets busy.

  The problem is that the news of the fall of the Soviet Union and spread of democracy to most of eastern Europe while welcome to most people is going to be very destablising and how those in power in the east accept it and what they think they can do to prevent it is difficult to tell.

Alright, then. I take it that the Americans would promise to continue to honor the Yalta Agreement so long as the USSR makes good choices, rather than hash out a new deal with them?

On N. Khrushchev being a moderate, I wonder if that'd translate to economic pragmatism once he finds out the OTL future fate of Soviet Russia (i.e. borrowing from Deng Xiaoping's playbook and implementing semi-capitalistic reforms himself). Of course, the cat-meritocrat himself is probably toast with Chairman Mao still in charge of the PRC .

  Agreed that Deng and others who later led the partial reform of China are likely to be in for a very bad, quite possibly fatal time.  Mao is just starting the so called Great Leap Forward, which was so disastrous that it did briefly loosen his control, until he regained it again with another disaster for China in the cultural revolution.  He did purge Deng at least once and this time could decide to remove him permanently.  Also he might seek to secure his legacy by boosting the position of his wife and other hard liners.

  Of course it could be that some elements, finding out in more detail about how terrible Mao's rule was for China and how much better things became after his fall that you could see attempts to remove him.  However its likely to be Mao and his supporters who will have most access to and control of news from the outside world, including what comes out of the 2008 PS.  Therefore I fear a deeper repression is more likely.

[Zyobot]

Aug 28, 2019 17:20:11 GMT stevep said:

Aug 28, 2019 16:40:36 GMT Zyobot said:

Alright, then. I take it that the Americans would promise to continue to honor the Yalta Agreement so long as the USSR makes good choices, rather than hash out a new deal with them?

On N. Khrushchev being a moderate, I wonder if that'd translate to economic pragmatism once he finds out the OTL future fate of Soviet Russia (i.e. borrowing from Deng Xiaoping's playbook and implementing semi-capitalistic reforms himself). Of course, the cat-meritocrat himself is probably toast with Chairman Mao still in charge of the PRC .

  Agreed that Deng and others who later led the partial reform of China are likely to be in for a very bad, quite possibly fatal time.  Mao is just starting the so called Great Leap Forward, which was so disastrous that it did briefly loosen his control, until he regained it again with another disaster for China in the cultural revolution.  He did purge Deng at least once and this time could decide to remove him permanently.  Also he might seek to secure his legacy by boosting the position of his wife and other hard liners.

  Of course it could be that some elements, finding out in more detail about how terrible Mao's rule was for China and how much better things became after his fall that you could see attempts to remove him.  However its likely to be Mao and his supporters who will have most access to and control of news from the outside world, including what comes out of the 2008 PS.  Therefore I fear a deeper repression is more likely.

So, Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution 2.0 since Mao won't appreciate what he hears/reads/sees about his OTL future legacy, then?

[stevep]

Aug 28, 2019 17:26:01 GMT Zyobot said:

Aug 28, 2019 17:20:11 GMT stevep said:

  Agreed that Deng and others who later led the partial reform of China are likely to be in for a very bad, quite possibly fatal time.  Mao is just starting the so called Great Leap Forward, which was so disastrous that it did briefly loosen his control, until he regained it again with another disaster for China in the cultural revolution.  He did purge Deng at least once and this time could decide to remove him permanently.  Also he might seek to secure his legacy by boosting the position of his wife and other hard liners.

  Of course it could be that some elements, finding out in more detail about how terrible Mao's rule was for China and how much better things became after his fall that you could see attempts to remove him.  However its likely to be Mao and his supporters who will have most access to and control of news from the outside world, including what comes out of the 2008 PS.  Therefore I fear a deeper repression is more likely.

So, Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution 2.0 since Mao won't appreciate what he hears/reads/sees about his OTL future legacy, then?

  Well it depends on the actual timing as to whether the GLF has actually started and what happens in China.  I fear that a lot of the OTL post-76 reformers are going to have a much shorter life but it could see Mao displaced or some very bloody infighting even a civil war.  However given Mao and his supporters are likely to have a strong control over what the rest of the population in China hears I suspect he will come out on top.  Especially since he is already the centre of a personality cult, if not possibly as much as later.

[Zyobot]

Aug 29, 2019 14:51:59 GMT stevep said:

Aug 28, 2019 17:26:01 GMT Zyobot said:

So, Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution 2.0 since Mao won't appreciate what he hears/reads/sees about his OTL future legacy, then?

  Well it depends on the actual timing as to whether the GLF has actually started and what happens in China.  I fear that a lot of the OTL post-76 reformers are going to have a much shorter life but it could see Mao displaced or some very bloody infighting even a civil war.  However given Mao and his supporters are likely to have a strong control over what the rest of the population in China hears I suspect he will come out on top.  Especially since he is already the centre of a personality cult, if not possibly as much as later.

[Sigh] Shit. That's what I was afraid of hearing back about. If Mao retains his control over the population and is able to enact his purges of post-1976 reformers early on --goodbye Deng Xiaoping & Co., best of luck on the other side--is there any hope of sanity and possibly capitalistic reforms taking hold of China in the future, i.e. after he eventually dies (whether it's from natural or unnatural causes is probably up for discussion ITTL)?

[stevep]

Aug 29, 2019 14:57:58 GMT Zyobot said:

Aug 29, 2019 14:51:59 GMT stevep said:

  Well it depends on the actual timing as to whether the GLF has actually started and what happens in China.  I fear that a lot of the OTL post-76 reformers are going to have a much shorter life but it could see Mao displaced or some very bloody infighting even a civil war.  However given Mao and his supporters are likely to have a strong control over what the rest of the population in China hears I suspect he will come out on top.  Especially since he is already the centre of a personality cult, if not possibly as much as later.

[Sigh] Shit. That's what I was afraid of hearing back about. If Mao retains his control over the population and is able to enact his purges of post-1976 reformers early on --goodbye Deng Xiaoping & Co., best of luck on the other side--is there any hope of sanity and possibly capitalistic reforms taking hold of China in the future, i.e. after he eventually dies (whether it's from natural or unnatural causes is probably up for discussion ITTL)?

  There's still an hope, especially if as a result the situation in China in his final years is even worse causing serious problems and a reaction.  Plus I'm working on what is the most probable result here but I could be wrong and another result could occur.

[Zyobot]

Aug 29, 2019 15:01:27 GMT stevep said:

Aug 29, 2019 14:57:58 GMT Zyobot said:

[Sigh] Shit. That's what I was afraid of hearing back about. If Mao retains his control over the population and is able to enact his purges of post-1976 reformers early on --goodbye Deng Xiaoping & Co., best of luck on the other side--is there any hope of sanity and possibly capitalistic reforms taking hold of China in the future, i.e. after he eventually dies (whether it's from natural or unnatural causes is probably up for discussion ITTL)?

  There's still an hope, especially if as a result the situation in China in his final years is even worse causing serious problems and a reaction.  Plus I'm working on what is the most probable result here but I could be wrong and another result could occur.

Mm'kay. Maybe if Mao pulled a Venezuela 2.0 on the PRC, the people would eventually take notice and--perhaps--break the communist conditioning?