Romanov Ascendant: What if the Soviet Union survived?

[Belka DNW]

Well you said you wanted to explore a possible second space race (which is really cool imo) if so the USSR could use Buran to go to the moon but they should wait until 2001 since it would be the 40 year anniversary of Gagarin's flight

 

[Justinian]

I had some free time and decided to make a map of TTL Europe in 1994. Here is the result:
View attachment 671406

That's an excellent map, thanks for contributing!

 

[The Gamer Sunflower]

@Justinian how will Soviet Union Re-explore the possibility of them making Video gaming without ASB Interfering with it, How would Soviet Union have a partnership with Japan or something like that in order to make it happen?

 

[Dan]

Having binged Deutschland 86, could you revisit the Warsaw Pact and the economic decline of the DDR please?

 

[Marco Rivignani]

I intend to revisit this and do a major rewrite/restructure of the timeline and then continue to the year 2000. I'd like to hear if anyone has any suggestions for either

• major retcons they feel should be made
• how the restructuring should be done
• any other forms of input

To be honest, the only major retcon that I think should be made is the election of Ross Perot as POTUS: I understand that thanks to a better election campaign he will get more votes but IMAO there is no way that this will be enough to break the duopoly of the Republican and Democratic parties.

However, I think that there are also some minor things that should be addressed and/or taken into consideration:

1. Al-Majid would never have proposed a complete merger with Syria; I can understand a full normalization of relations, joint military exercises and maybe an agreement between the two countries to present a united front on the Palestinian matter but not an outright merger.
2. I don't know what plans you have for Italy but remember that it will never be allowed to leave NATO or take any major action against the USA or Western Europe; if the communist government announced something like this you would see tanks and APCs roll down the streets of Rome and soldiers storming Palazzo Chigi, arresting any left-wing politicians and deporting them to Sardinia (Piano Solo).

 

[Marco Rivignani]

That's an excellent map, thanks for contributing!

Always grateful to help out

 

[King Nazar]

To be honest, the only major retcon that I think should be made is the election of Ross Perot as POTUS: I understand that thanks to a better election campaign he will get more votes but IMAO there is no way that this will be enough to break the duopoly of the Republican and Democratic parties.

Agreed. The only thing I would suggest changing would be the election of Ross Perot. Depending on how the 1992 Democratic primary goes (without the Gulf War a lot more Democrats would have entered the field) its entirely possible Perot would not even run. If an anti-NAFTA candidate like Gephardt got the nomination, Perot would not run and would endorse him which could lead to a Democratic landslide that year.

 

[Antonella95]

I intend to revisit this and do a major rewrite/restructure of the timeline and then continue to the year 2000. I'd like to hear if anyone has any suggestions for either

• major retcons they feel should be made
• how the restructuring should be done
• any other forms of input

I personally I think that the Soviets would have tried to convince Saddam to stop a few kilometres north of Al-Jahra on the tip of Kuwait Bay and not invade all of Kuwait. This would have most likely averted a direct military response by the US thanks to the fact that all major Kuwaiti population centres would have been left untouched but would have still been a win for Iraq since it would have gained bigger access to the sea, ended the alleged Kuwaiti slant drilling into the Rumaila oilfield and most importantly enforced the production discipline with OPEC through sheer fear.

 

[Justinian]

Agreed. The only thing I would suggest changing would be the Ross Perot. Depending on how the 1992 Democratic primary goes (without the Gulf War a lot more Democrats would have entered the field) its entirely possible Perot would not even run. If an anti-NAFTA candidate like Gephardt got the nomination, Perot would not run and would endorse him which could lead to a Democratic landslide that year.

It was definitely something I felt a lot of contention over, it is a little out of bounds and definitely does have a strong potential for a rewrite.

I personally think that the Soviets would have tried to convince Saddam to stop a few kilometres north of Al-Jahra on the tip of Kuwait Bay and not invade all of Kuwait. This would have most likely averted a direct military response by the US thanks to the fact that all major Kuwaiti population centres would have been left untouched but would have still been a win for Iraq since it would have gained bigger access to the sea, ended the alleged Kuwaiti slant drilling into the Rumaila oilfield and most importantly enforced the production discipline with OPEC through sheer fear.

This is strategically sound, my concern would be considering the character of Saddam, if he could be convinced.

 

[Marco Rivignani]

This is strategically sound, my concern would be considering the character of Saddam, if he could be convinced.

Convincing Saddam would be very difficult but I think that it wouldn't be impossible. Maybe threaten to end weapons shipments to Iraq and shift them to Syria and Iran? Or maybe saying that in the case of a full-scale Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the USSR would not veto a UN resolution to reverse Saddam gains? I really don't know

 

[Antonella95]

Convincing Saddam would be very difficult but I think that it wouldn't be impossible. Maybe threaten to end weapons shipments to Iraq and shift them to Syria and Iran? Or maybe saying that in the case of a full-scale Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the USSR would not veto a UN resolution to reverse Saddam gains? I really don't know

Yeah, I was thinking of something like this.

 

[Justinian]

Having binged Deutschland 86, could you revisit the Warsaw Pact and the economic decline of the DDR please?

This is something we'll definitely be trying to look at more in depth. Overall one thing to keep in mind is that the Soviets forced the client states to adopt computerized planning, self management in industries and increased economic cooperation. I wouldn't put other methods, exporting to sanctioned countries, creating counterfeit western currency (something North Korea does) above them either; Cuba and then later Venezuela is/are definitely exporting cocaine. That combined with more soviet oil money, no Chernobyl and an overall increase in oil prices (Soviet dominated OPEC) counters it, but it is also to cover in more detail.

 

[22000 Kevin]

The world in which we live today has been nearly completely and totally shaped by two transient events that occurred both in the 20th century, the first obviously being the period of the world wars and the second being the collapse of the Soviet Union. The world war's importance to the direction of modern history is obvious to anyone, not only would they dictate the fates of nations and of millions of people, but the ideological and philosophical direction said nations and individuals would take, it would be nearly impossible to ruminate over the thousands of possible different directions we could have been pulled in or on. The collapse did not result in the same scale of death or destruction (Although certainly millions did die or have their life quality considerably altered, for better or for worse by it) but it ultimately cleared the way for a world in which capitalism and to a lesser extent (a far lesser extent than what western intellectuals in the 1990s thought) liberal democracy could be the only legitimate ideologies.

It would be the end of history, at least as we know it. However, it is very clear this notion was born of some kind of hubristic naivety created from a feeling of victory from watching the wall get knocked down and rockstars parade around in Moscow. This of course raised a question in me, what if the Soviets didn't collapse? That global capitalism and liberalism did not receive it's catharsis in 1989 and 1991? How would history progress in the midst of an unending cold war. This then of course led me to consider what exactly went wrong in the Soviet Union, that had led to its collapse in the first place. It is very obvious, especially when we have the real life comparison of the PRC, that Gorbachev's naive idealism to create an open political system combined with open market reforms both fed off each other resulting in the modern breadline photos taken from (1988-1991) that are often touted as examples of life in the Soviet Union during the 80s, which it was not in fact like, so I would rather argue that Gorbachev's personality, approach to reform and overall incompetence at a time of political, ideological and economic crisis created the conditions necessary for the collapse.

However clearly there were other systemic issues at play, sapping away the Soviet Union's economic capabilities, these being runaway military spending, some of the inherent inefficiencies of planned economics and corruption. Obviously I cannot account for the actions of someone who did not actually take power, but Grigory Romanov was Gorbachev's rival to take power, he was a hardliner and very much styled himself after Andropov. For the purposes of this timeline I essentially continue a Soviet Union ran under Andropov esque policy, but taken to it's logical ends. Anti corruption purges, pseudo-technocratic imposition of an intranet necessary to create a cross referencing checking system for the economy; of course the subsequent technological development which would result from concentration in that sector. Our departure from the original timeline posits a slightly healthier Andropov manages to hand off control of the Soviet Union to a competent hardliner, skipping Chernenko entirely, either due to his health taking a turn for the worse earlier, or even his consent or both.



View attachment 671935
View attachment 608124

Romanov's Acescent
Moscow, 1985
It had become clear by the mid 1980's that the Politburo's leadership was woefully incapable of keeping up with the United State's and the West's dynamic economy and aggressive foreign policy. The Star Wars project was believed by some in the Aerospace and Air Forces that the delicate equilibrium of MAD was being threatened. Others felt that the Soviet Union was stagnating, this was overwelmingly clear to both the economists and the politburo. General Secretary Andropov was highly effective during his tenure. He demonstrated that strong leadership from the center could in fact deal with corruption at least to some extent, and counter balance the west. But his tenure was a short one, his kidney failed and worsened several of his other health conditions, and he died at the age of 71. Before this, it had become clear that a successor would be needed soon. Andropov intended to retire from his post (the first Soviet leader to do this) and hand off power to his chosen successor.

Yet there was contention between the hardliners and reformers, and this had set off a leadership struggle within the Politburo, with Gorbachev backed by senior figures like Andrei Gromyko and other reformists. Grigory Romanov was the 2nd youngest member of the Politburo, he was very close to Andropov and who became something of a mentor and a friend, they would often play chess while Andropov underwent dialysis. With Andropov's unwavering support Romanov courted Viktor Grishin and the conservatives. At the March 1985 meeting of the Central Committee, Grishin nominated Romanov. However Gromyko nominated Gorbachev, creating an extremely tense situation unseen in the history of the CPSU, which had almost always nominated candidates unanimously. Chernenko voted for Romanov, despite his own aspirations, he understood that his own health was at risk and decided to pass the torch. Gromyko withdrew his bid and Romanov was elected unanimously. Gromyko subsequently "retired" and Gorbachev was later removed and given a pension and a regional position in the Kuril Islands.

Romanov by acclimation by first the Politburo, Central Committee and finally the Supreme Soviet, as 6th General Secretary of the Communist Party. It wasn't long until Romanov had embarked an ambitious campaign of reform, something that he had ambitiously formulated in his head for years prior and had refined in bedside discussions with Andropov. Andropov saw in Romanov a vehicle to continue his attempts to save the revolution and country from failure and collapse. His (relative) youth gave him the dynamism and energy to see it through, despite the difficulty of dealing with the immense byzantine soviet bureaucracy. Romanov, acting with the legitimacy of his mandate, made a move that would later be recounted by historians as having changed the direction of Soviet history. Advised to do this by Andropov, as Romanov did not have the benefit of having risen in the KGB. His first serious decisive action was reforming the party oversight of the KGB, making it almost only accountable only to the General Secretary. In plainer terms, this essentially gave him the power to not only control the upper echelons of the KGB himself, but to investigate those who had previously held "immunity". This move was at first seen as bizarre, radical break with tradition. Brezhnev would have never considered such a borderline Stalinist move. The reformists in the party reacted with dissension and spread dissent in the party. Previously, the KGB was accountable to the party leadership in the spirit of 'collective leadership', a move made by Khrushchev and held by Brezhnev, this however had the effect of allowing the lower party ranks to become more corrupt, as they could use their political connections or influence to enrich themselves. Andropov, a KGB man, had imparted in Romanov his hatred of corruption and his fervent belief in the importance of the KGB in safeguarding Lenin's revolution and more importantly the state.

The rank and file of the Committee of State Security (KGB) had no problem transferring their loyalty for Andropov to Romanov, especially with their increased authority, pay and stature in society. He used them as his party vanguard to eliminate those enemies wherever they stood, cleaning house on the basis of what was called the "revolutionary anti corruption campaign". Many western leaders denounced the move, highlighted by several defectors. The Soviets simply responded "Do you not punish criminals in your own country, comrade ambassador? These men we are prosecuting steal without regard." The 'Anti Corruption Campaign' became a massive propaganda stunt that helped Romanov mobilize the younger student elements of the party and the more radical elements. Under the cover and fervor of the public trials, he cleared out many his own opponents in the party or general society, but the the biggest victims were in fact corrupt officials. Without the KGB untethered, acting with what they felt was righteous indignation, they manage to seriously damage, destroy or roll back the largest and most overt corruption and black market efforts. With the students and Komosols motivated, he also continued the (admittedly humorous) Andropov policy of 'labour discipline', eager communist students were recruited (and promised easier party membership) to force workers to actually go back to their jobs, rather than being absent from work and getting drunk, which had become common during the Brezhnev years.

In the following years:

View attachment 608542

• Romanov's ideological premise was that what was determined in the confines of Marxist Leninism as 'developed socialism' had not yet been established in the Soviet Union or in its allied states. It had yet to achieve the same level of economic and technological output as it's western rivals, and without achieving this desired state of evolution, they would be constantly sprinting to catch up to the last obstacle the west had already crossed. He stated in full terms that the country had languished under the lethargy of Breznevisim. Dismissing Brezhnev's legacy was a bold political move that already contributed to antipathy from some, but was overwelmingly regarded as correct, both by the higher elements of the KGB, the Party and even the general population, who had come to perceive Brezhnev as an idiot and overwhelming incompetent. This openness and honesty, despite it's clear cynical reality of blaming all of the problems on the last leader did in fact improve his image. Using his hold on the KGB, he could also remove those he saw as Breznevists at will. This allowed Romanov to rebuild the conservative and hardline faction at his own discretion, removing old magnates and putting his own men in. In public he made the caveat to save some supporters of Brezhnev political face, that he did do his best for the fraternal brotherhood of peoples in the Soviet Union, but had failed in his duties in allowing stagnation to take hold.
  
  
• He said that his ambitious program would correct the problems in the state, and made public speeches to this effect. This being in effect the first time a public figure in the Soviet Union had acknowledged the problems plaguing the country. He kept it short and to the point, and of course downplayed the scale of it, blaming it on a handful of criminals. But this move shook up the party, and created a general interest in the population, which had generally had an antipathy towards politicians. He seemed a little more 'honest' than most. This had led to dissent in some of the conservative factions, but he assuaged them privately, arguing that such self reflection was a Marxist Leninist principal and that they needed to gain credibility to defeat the reformers. The vast majority ultimately got behind the leader who appeared to be dealing with the problems in the country, acting as the strongman that many conservatives felt that the Soviet Union needed again. The overall program was announced and called Uprochneniye (Consolidation). It proscribed economic reforms including stricter administration, consolidation of state industries and some elements of self management and was added to the twelfth 5 year plan. After weeks of consultation with the Soviet Union's best minds in computers, economics, political science and engineering, they came to a conclusion that the Soviet Union needed an electronic system to ease and make more efficient it's economic planning system. The system would later be called EGSVT and was inspired by the to the Chilean Cybersyn project. Romanov despite not comprehending or knowing much about computers, was so impressed by this, that he was swayed to support the emerging Soviet computer and electronics industry, something he had taken a personal interest in, he also elevated several younger technology experts in the party on a track to Politburo membership. This system once implemented could help deal with some of the inherent problems of a planned economy. Uprochneniye would be forced onto the various Warsaw pact member states with varying degrees of success.
  
  
  
• By 1988, the foundational infrastructure for EGSVT had been finished, and two new manufacturing complexes for electronics and computers were finished, one near Leningrad and the other near Minsk. Three more were slated to be finished by '89, one near Moscow, another near Vilnius and the other at Vladivostok. The increasing use of computers in administration and economic management as well the increased authoritarian methods had resulted in economic growth. The system's grand opening in late 1988 and early 1989 was plagued by glitches and technical problems, but overall proved to massively improve efficiency. Previously, it was normal for entire trains of produce to be left to rot before it would even begin to be distributed to stores, but the improvements had led to better distribution. Now it was possible to actually procure meat or coffee from a store. For example Instead of waiting for 7-10 years to receive a lada you had already paid for with low production qualities, the wait shrank to 2 to 4 years for a somewhat better lada or skoda. Televisions were no longer had a tendency to catch on fire or bust from simple normal use (from higher production standards). Quality control was increasingly forced and factory heads held accountable. Self management in some industries improved their productive capacity, and led to increasing standards in agriculture. People no longer used prada as toilet paper because they could actually get (toilet paper) it from a government store. Because consumer good quality was improving, the Soviets could now export some of it's goods, instead of relying exclusively on oil and natural resource sales. Reductions to the military budget, and mainly to bloat that Romanov had seen while being head of the military industrial complex (in 1983, an actual fact) also helped. In summary, the quality of life was improving in the mid to late 1980s in a similar way, that life seemed to be improving in the 70s to the immediate post war generation of the Soviet Union.
  
  
• Romanov was unwilling to back down in Afghanistan, the war continued at an increased pace, the Americans increased their support but the Soviets also increased their troops numbers and began using even more unsavory tactics and techniques, including mass deportations to more easily controlled camps and cities and rumored use of chemical and biological weapons. Forcible urbanization in the most problematic regions heavily damaged the support base for the mujahedeen, forcing them to take refuge in their mountain fortresses on the borders of Pakistan. When a MiG-27 on a bombing run was shot down by a Pakistani F-16 in 1986, Andropov ordered retaliation. The Soviets lost a MiG-25 after downing 3 F-16s and then began a short but decisive air campaign on the North of Pakistan, targeting their training camps in 1987. Several more Pakistani fighters were shot down, and the US reacted very sternly, stating that a Soviet invasion of Pakistan was a redline, and the US would defend Pakistani territorial integrity. It was considered one of the closest cold war flashpoints since Able Archer. Despite Reagan's grand standing, the Soviets had no intention of expanding the war to another country and instead simply issued a warning that overt support for terrorists targeting their countrymen would be met likewise. By 89 the Pakistanis continued their support, but improvements in Soviet combat techniques and technology reduced the mujahedeens effectiveness to an even lesser degree. Forced into staging night raids on the Afghanis themselves or planting mines. Whenever the Soviets would find a cave system or mountain fortress, they would obliterate it through massive artillery bombardment, or in some selective cases, chemical weapons. By the 1990s, The Soviets withdrew the majority of their forces from Afghanistan after overwelmingly gutting the opposition through the aforementioned methods and agreed to some reforms with the moderate opposition, while maintaining a supply line to the Afghan communists and advisors to help fight the continuing but less escalated insurgency.
  
  
• General Secretary Romanov became increasingly paranoid as well as openly ruthless. He also appeared to becoming more narcissistic. Soviet Propaganda began depicting him by the end of 1986 as one of the great socialists and personal defender of the revolution in propaganda. He had also massively curtailed the autonomy of many of the constituent republics of the USSR. Which provoked unrest, but the increased power of the KGB had managed to control it, at least at that point. Despite maintaining the Khrushchev line on Stalin, Romanov gradually reintroduced the cult of personality.
  
  
• The benefits of the economic development and increased use of electronics had led to the Soviets managing to actually produce surpluses in goods and food that were transferred to the other member states of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA). This actively reduced unrest in the general population in the Warsaw Pact states, yet there were still strong liberal movements operating in East Germany, Poland and to a lesser extent Czechoslovakia. Bulgaria had a stronger and more entrenched population of loyalists, but Romania was increasingly destabilized by the erratic leadership style of Ceausescu. The Soviets gradually assisted in paying the debts incurred by each state with its profits, especially with Poland in near crisis. The Soviets and East Germans, energized by the recent success increasingly pushed for increased economic integration, gladly accepted by all except Romania. However increasing instability would later force Ceausescu to accept it, but it worked for the best in conjunction with his completion of his austerity policy.

Now it's 1989, the cold war and the Eastern Bloc appears to be stable. The space race is still on, Romanov promising a MIR-2 and lunar landing. Technologically, the two sides remained at par, each with slight advantages in certain sectors. The Soviets are still trying to catch up with stealth, but they had increasingly closed the gap in cruise missiles and other precision weapons or avionics. I would like to develop this as a collaborative timeline, so please let me know what you think and how this world would develop.

Well upon hearing the news of the rewrite/restructure of this story, I decided to read the old story once again to remember the old events that happen in this timeline.

And I still thought I was reading the old version of this story when I started on Chapter 1...

I started to immediately notice that certain things felt "wrong", seeing things I could've swore weren't there before, getting confused on why it seems much longer and thinking that the quality and details were also much higher than I last remember it.

I finally realised at the end of the Post that this was the rewrite/restructure that you were talking about earlier.

It took me till the end of that chapter to finally realised that you weren't making a brand new thread with the rewrite but instead updating the older chapters with the rewrite/restructure.

Well my opinions on the subject is mixed, whether to start over on a new thread or replace the writing on the old thread, I usually prefer the former to be honest as you won't be reading old comments mentioning old things that eventually don't exist as the rewrite eventually becomes impossible to connect with the the original.

Also I remember something about SSBN's in this story, or rather I was working on a list of Submarines that I failed to finish.

I don't know what plans you have for Italy but remember that it will never be allowed to leave NATO or take any major action against the USA or Western Europe; if the communist government announced something like this you would see tanks and APCs roll down the streets of Rome and soldiers storming Palazzo Chigi, arresting any left-wing politicians and deporting them to Sardinia (Piano Solo)

Honestly its hard to believe that the Italian Military would be able to pull off a dramatic stunt in a Western European Democracy in the Internet age without having its image and reputation ruined with pictures of Tanks and Blood over the streets of Rome.

That image is just asking for an Italian version of "Tank Man" to be infamously shown over the world, however Italy doesn't have the power to censor everything like China did with the "Tiananmen Square incident".

Also I would be inclined to believe that Italian Communist could just become another Yugoslavia/Neutral type party that doesn't want to involve itself into a major Alliance but wants to maintain relations (Not an expert on Italian Communist/Socialist Parties so I have no clue if my statements are right or wrong).

However constant interference and/or provocations from the United States and her Western Allies could slowly push the Commumist into the arms of the Eastern Bloc.

NATO members are legally allowed to withdraw from the organisation after 20 years of membership, read it up if you want to learn more, the CIA will do its best to meddle like it always does with varying degrees of success.

The destruction of democratic institutions in Italy during such a brutal Military crackdown will also not help the image of the Western Europe at all and defeats tha purpose of Democracy (if that wasn't obvious).

 

[Blyatnik]

I intend to revisit this and do a major rewrite/restructure of the timeline and then continue to the year 2000. I'd like to hear if anyone has any suggestions for either

• major retcons they feel should be made
• how the restructuring should be done
• any other forms of input

Nothing wrong per se, but I feel like a better understanding of Soviet intervention and foreign policy could be made. It's good now, but your writing style and analytical approach could make it great.

I think a retcon that should be made is that Romanov should maintain the relative size of the Nuclear forces, not massive reduction like in our own history. At least keep building modern missiles and warheads to phase out old ones.

 

[Belka DNW]

It would be interesting imo to look at Angola and Mozambique since in 1989 Angola was declared a socialist republic and fell into civil war. Also wouldn't the USSR help Cuba and Venezuela to industrialize?

 

[Marco Rivignani]

Honestly its hard to believe that the Italian Military would be able to pull off a dramatic stunt in a Western European Democracy in the Internet age without having its image and reputation ruined with pictures of Tanks and Blood over the streets of Rome.

That image is just asking for an Italian version of "Tank Man" to be infamously shown over the world, however Italy doesn't have the power to censor everything like China did with the "Tiananmen Square incident".

Also I would be inclined to believe that Italian Communist could just become another Yugoslavia/Neutral type party that doesn't want to involve itself into a major Alliance but wants to maintain relations (Not an expert on Italian Communist/Socialist Parties so I have no clue if my statements are right or wrong).

However constant interference and/or provocations from the United States and her Western Allies could slowly push the Commumist into the arms of the Eastern Bloc.

NATO members are legally allowed to withdraw from the organisation after 20 years of membership, read it up if you want to learn more, the CIA will do its best to meddle like it always does with varying degrees of success.

The destruction of democratic institutions in Italy during such a brutal Military crackdown will also not help the image of the Western Europe at all and defeats tha purpose of Democracy (if that wasn't obvious).

I have to admit that a direct military coup would be too much but still, I have huge problems figuring out how the communists could win in 1992:

1. Tangentopoli scandals; with the cold war in full swing and no revelation of Gladio the investigations would have most likely been suppressed and not allowed to reach the critical mass of OTL (according to the American ambassador Reginald Bartholomew, behind the operation the led to Tangentopoli there was the CIA who helped the Italian prosecutors to accuse the politicians). After Mario Chiesa is arrested and Di Pietro and Colombo ask to continue their investigation nothing prevents DC Interior Minister Vincenzo Scotti to put a veto on the matter and cover up the affair. In the worst case, Antonio di Pietro and Colombo could always be the victim of a bomb attack orchestrated by the "Mafia". The attack would be condemned, a monument would be built and then everything would have returned as it was before everything started (like it was in OTL with Falcone and Borsellino).
2. Communists appeal; even assuming that the Tangentopoli scandals would have proceeded like in OTL, the PCI (Partito Comunista Italiano /Italian Communist Party) would have also been involved in the investigations and as in OTL many of its members would also be convicted of various criminal charges. You also need to consider that the Soviet intervention in Poland and Yugoslavia (especially Ljubljana) would have seriously hurt the popularity of the communists. Ochetto wasn't a very charismatic figure and the communist share of the votes was already in decline since the death of Berlinguer.
3. Anti-communist alliance; every party in the Italian Parliament except for the Greens and some factions within the PSI (especially the one headed by Claudio Martelli) was hostile to the communists. There is nothing that prevents the government coalition to be expanded by either the Lega Nord or the MSI/AN.
4. Silvio Berlusconi; if the situation in 1992 would have been so desperate that the Communists seemed on verge of winning Berlusconi would have entered politics earlier and joined either the DC or the PSI and used his mediatic machine to even a greater extent than in OTL.
5. Foreign and internal meddlings; the CIA and practically every other western intelligence agency would have focused some of its resources on swaying the Italian elections against the communists in a way similar to what had been done in the 1948 elections. In the southern half of the Peninsula, the Mafia would have also ensured the victory of the anti-communists.
6. The PCI, the Italian communist party was a Eurocommunist party and generally wasn't opposed to NATO membership or greater integration within the EU. In the case the communists win the elections I can see NATO forces leave most of their bases in Italy and Rome retaliating by withdrawing from the U.S.-led military command to pursue an independent defence strategy but not an outright and complete withdrawal from NATO. Here are some articles from the late 70s that even if are a bit dated still present an idea of what could have happened: https://www.nytimes.com/1976/05/09/...-nato-ties-if-communists-join-government.html , https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/15/...reds-join-italian-regime-earlier-concern.html

P.S. Sorry if I was a bit wordy but I wanted to be as detailed as possible.

 

[Justinian]

I have to admit that a direct military coup would be too much but still, I have huge problems figuring out how the communists could win in 1992:

1. Tangentopoli scandals; with the cold war in full swing and no revelation of Gladio the investigations would have most likely been suppressed and not allowed to reach the critical mass of OTL (according to the American ambassador Reginald Bartholomew, behind the operation the led to Tangentopoli there was the CIA who helped the Italian prosecutors to accuse the politicians). After Mario Chiesa is arrested and Di Pietro and Colombo ask to continue their investigation nothing prevents DC Interior Minister Vincenzo Scotti to put a veto on the matter and cover up the affair. In the worst case, Antonio di Pietro and Colombo could always be the victim of a bomb attack orchestrated by the "Mafia". The attack would be condemned, a monument would be built and then everything would have returned as it was before everything started (like it was in OTL with Falcone and Borsellino).
2. Communists appeal; even assuming that the Tangentopoli scandals would have proceeded like in OTL, the PCI (Partito Comunista Italiano /Italian Communist Party) would have also been involved in the investigations and as in OTL many of its members would also be convicted of various criminal charges. You also need to consider that the Soviet intervention in Poland and Yugoslavia (especially Ljubljana) would have seriously hurt the popularity of the communists. Ochetto wasn't a very charismatic figure and the communist share of the votes was already in decline since the death of Berlinguer.
3. Anti-communist alliance; every party in the Italian Parliament except for the Greens and some factions within the PSI (especially the one headed by Claudio Martelli) was hostile to the communists. There is nothing that prevents the government coalition to be expanded by either the Lega Nord or the MSI/AN.
4. Silvio Berlusconi; if the situation in 1992 would have been so desperate that the Communists seemed on verge of winning Berlusconi would have entered politics earlier and joined either the DC or the PSI and used his mediatic machine to even a greater extent than in OTL.
5. Foreign and internal meddlings; the CIA and practically every other western intelligence agency would have focused some of its resources on swaying the Italian elections against the communists in a way similar to what had been done in the 1948 elections. In the southern half of the Peninsula, the Mafia would have also ensured the of the anti-communists.
6. The PCI, the Italian communist party was a Eurocommunist party and generally wasn't opposed to NATO membership or greater integration within the EU. In the case the communists win the elections I can see NATO forces leave most of their bases in Italy and Rome retaliating by withdrawing from the U.S.-led military command to pursue an independent defence strategy but not an outright and complete withdrawal from NATO. Here are some articles from the late 70s that even if are a bit dated still present an idea of what could have happened: https://www.nytimes.com/1976/05/09/...-nato-ties-if-communists-join-government.html , https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/15/...reds-join-italian-regime-earlier-concern.html

P.S. Sorry if I was a bit wordy but I wanted to be as detailed as possible.

These are all definitely fair points, but the one thing I also am considering in terms of the European leftists and the Italian Socialists in particular is the impact of Ljubljana. This would have turned into high intensity urban warfare, but the Yugoslavians may have taken the blunt of the blame, and they were certainly more justified than 'Prague'. On the other hand I think the increase in living standards and the transition to a computerized intranet based version of marxist leninism and it's subsequent benefits to the quality of life in Eastern Europe would have made it a more attractive ideology. Lefty tourists, journalists and an increasing market for tourism to relatively cheap destinations in Yugoslavia and Eastern Europe may have changed a lot of minds towards the better in terms of socialism. Romanov would increasingly be seen as a 'made the trains' run on time kind of figure, where the communism starves people rhetoric has kind of ran out of steam.

Now in Italy itself, I would also assume that the KGB would certainly be pumping the accelerator in terms of either corrupting officials that need to corrupted or "mafia" assassinations. My assumption would be that if the communists could win, some of this may be a protest vote, some of a reaction to a lack of US 'leadership'. However the direction I was taking that to originally was an attempted counter revolution, either resulting in a near civil war or the imposition of a neo-fascist regime. The latter idea appeals to me on the basis of the definition of fascism as 'capitalism in crisis' and could be the turning point in European politics. Socialists/Social Democrats either gain liberal support, or conservatives melt away and join the nationalists and fascists in a last ditch effort to stop communism, either successfully or simply causing the acceleration of the latter. Out of all of the countries, Italy in my mind has the most potential for this kind situation. France after and then West Germany to a seriously lesser extent.

On the 5th point, the CIA is definitely going to try to put the breaks on this, but the KGB is going to go the opposite way with a massive pool of collaborators. If the anti communists lean to heavy on the mafia you might get a reverse of the original scandal.

On the 6th, I think Eurocommunism's ideology would be severely undermined by the success of Marxist Leninism, which has by all accounts appeared to have forced the world to accept it. Realistically they would probably just pull a DeGaulle.

 

[Justinian]

It would be interesting imo to look at Angola and Mozambique since in 1989 Angola was declared a socialist republic and fell into civil war. Also wouldn't the USSR help Cuba and Venezuela to industrialize?

On the first part of this, it's definitely my weak spot, I simply am not as knowledgeable about African cold war history as I am about Europe. I am very much open for suggestions on that front. They should include the fact that:

- Cuba's military posture has been drawn down to a defensive one in Angola, and the Soviets in general have stopped throwing money into Africa.

On the 2nd point they definitely would, I think I mentioned it or was going to mention that the Soviet state owned international export company (The Soviet West America Company? Ha) was going to start building a lot of oil infrastructure in Venezuela and they would probably invest heavily into the Tobacco and Sugar industries of Cuba, and their subsequent refining capabilities. I also imagine that once they see the how much money the Cuban security service is pulling from cocaine trafficking, they may take a hand in that, which was also going to inform a major scandal in the mid to late 90s.

 

[Justinian]

Well upon hearing the news of the rewrite/restructure of this story, I decided to read the old story once again to remember the old events that happen in this timeline.

And I still thought I was reading the old version of this story when I started on Chapter 1...

I started to immediately notice that certain things felt "wrong", seeing things I could've swore weren't there before, getting confused on why it seems much longer and thinking that the quality and details were also much higher than I last remember it.

I finally realised at the end of the Post that this was the rewrite/restructure that you were talking about earlier.

It took me till the end of that chapter to finally realised that you weren't making a brand new thread with the rewrite but instead updating the older chapters with the rewrite/restructure.

Well my opinions on the subject is mixed, whether to start over on a new thread or replace the writing on the old thread, I usually prefer the former to be honest as you won't be reading old comments mentioning old things that eventually don't exist as the rewrite eventually becomes impossible to connect with the the original.

Also I remember something about SSBN's in this story, or rather I was working on a list of Submarines that I failed to finish.

I wanted to update the original post just because that's the first thing people see when they open the thread, but I may just rewrite/restructure it through new posts like I did with the protest event. Now we're at the contemplation stage.

 

[Noah Simon17]

Hey Justinian at some point in your story can you talk a bit about nuclear energy? Since the Chernobyl disaster, I have to assume that the nuclear scare of the late 80s wouldn't have happened and more nuclear power plants would have been built around the world such as:

• No strengthening the anti-nuclear movement in Germany, which culminated in the decision to end the use of nuclear that was made by the 1998–2005 Schröder government in OTL.
• No 1987 referendum in Italy and no phasing out its nuclear power plants. Maybe nuclear construction would be incentivised by the new government to achieve energy independence?
• The anti-nuclear referendum in Switzerland failing.
• Sweden opting to keep using nuclear energy.
• More RBMK nuclear reactors built inside the USSR and abroad in countries like Romania, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela and maybe even Libya, Iraq and Syria.
• Slightly more nuclear power plants built in the USA and Canada
• Turkey building nuclear powerplants in the late 80s and early 90s
• Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia continuing to build nuclear powerplants

Basically, you would be pushing the post-Chernobyl events to 2011 when the Fukushima Disaster would most likely still happen (or maybe not?)