Probably not.
India vs. China rivalry already stems back since even the PRC was established. The fact that India is a powerful equivalent to China in the region is another factor to consider.
The Death of Russia - TL
- Thread starter Sorairo
- Start date
India vs. China rivalry already stems back since even the PRC was established. The fact that India is a powerful equivalent to China in the region is another factor to consider.
Probably the US will have to make these talks happen for them to work.
The 4/10 nuclear attacks would probably butterfly the rise of aggressive China in the 2010s-2020s and India's counter towards it.
But, will the U.S. still court to India to keep China in check?
I just realized: Bin Laden's plan is highly similar to the plot of Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears". That was written in 1991, pre-PoD. It's a similarity way more likely to be picked up on than the Turner Diaries, and Clancy will probably get praised for 'predicting' the nuclear war.
I don't think that praise is the right word but you would be right that he did predict this exact situation, only that the terrorists weren't successful in his book.
The world experienced the horrors of nuclear weapons, the resurgence of authoritarian governments (both fascists and communists), and large scale devastation caused by Islamic fundamentalism, but there are many more things that could also go wrong that can be explored in literature.
Maybe this would inspire Tom Clancy to create a story similar to the Division video game (instead of like OTL where it was made after his death and they slapped his name on it) where biological weapons are the main threat.
Intresting. And this would alter Clancy's works greatly. Speciality there wouldn't be The Bear and the Dragon, where China and Russia go to war. Perhaps it is replaced by The Tiger and the Dragon where is Sino-Indian War and USA sides with India.
Probably adventures of Jack Ryan Jr. (written in 2000's) are altered since in OTL they chased Islamists but them would have some another target since no war on terrorism and Islamic terrorists are not such big deal anymore. Probably China gets bigger focus on Clancy's last works.
One element of his earlier novels, at least as late as The Sum of All Fears, was a belief that the Soviets —however hamstrung by political misrule and their technological shortcomings—were fundamentally reasonable and trustworthy. They were antagonists, but they were respectable ones with whom one could form an understanding and perhaps even a friendship.
I have no certain idea how the self-destruction of Russia, at a tremendous cost not only to Russians but to Russia's neighbours and even the United States himself, will change Clancy's perspectives. I suspect it will not be good. Maybe there would be work with the Asian successor states of Russia, trying to bolster them against China? Maybe there will be a whole new shift towards policing the world in concert with China?
Based on previous comments on this "a book inspired a horrible act" thing, I was expecting people would start saying that Tom Clancy would be immediately arrested by the FBI on charges of "promoting nuclear terrorism."
Also, even if the judge resists the immense public and media pressure demanding Tom Clancy's death sentence, and exonerates him of all responsibility... it won't matter, because a group of vigilante victims of 4/10 will try to assassinate him anyway.
I have read both novels, FWIW. The clear difference between the two is that Clancy's bombers are readily identified as bad people doing a bad thing; they literally betray all of their collaborators, and everyone else identifies them as monsters. The protagonists of the Turner Diaries are identifiable in-text as people with foresight who are doing the things that must be done, hard things perhaps but fundamentally good things.
I imagine you could generate readings of The Sum of All Fears that would identify it as a pro-nuclear terrorism book. After coming across some anti-trans people who decided to read the TNG episode "The Outcast" as telling the story of a confused person from an advanced genderless society who was properly brought back into alignment with what was right, so saving her from a predatory Riker, I realized that you can read something anyway if you really want to. The pro-nuclear terrorism reading of Clancy may be possible, but it would be recognizable as forced to everyone save the people invested in that reading for whatever reason.
Last edited:
I also read both novels.
Hence my observations that The Turner Diaries are so horribly poorly written that they would only "convince" someone who already believes all that crap in the first place. So I think it is very doubtful that the phenomenon of "Normal Person reads TTD = Normal Person regresses Rabid White Supremacist" occurs, which is implicit in this case.
As for Tom Clancy, what I saw was your average novel that would be used as an action movie script: evil bad guys being evil because that's what evil bad guys do.
What I tried was simply to apply here the same "logic" that would be followed in the first case.
The assumption in the first case (which as I've already developed I think is quite ridiculous and nobody would believe such a silly theory) is that everybody would buy "Barkashov plagiarized TTD", nobody would for a moment consider "hey, this is too stupid". are you sure we're not being fooled?", and you'd get massive, angry mobs searching houses and rounding up random people to lynch to death anyone in possession of a copy of TTD.
So, following that same logic, you get that there would be rabid mobs looking to lynch to death anyone who owns a Tom Clancy novel, organizing burnings of Tom Clancy novels, and of course repeated attempts to assassinate Tom Clancy...
...that is, if all the Abbreviated Agencies not coming down on him to basically use every possible legal trick to ensure Clancy has to sit in the electric chair.
It is true that said like that it sounds tremendously stupid, forced and crazy, but that is exactly the point. Show with a similar example how crazy the idea that someone just read a book and did something crazy like 4/10 would look to the average viewer.
This reminds me in OTL, technothrillers released in the 1990s portrayed China as the next "rogue" enemy. Consider that in 1992, the U.S. designated China as the OPFOR once more.
One further key difference is that the Turner Diaries was intended to be a how-to manual for violent white supremacists, and did in fact serve something of that function OTL. That motive is entirely absent in the Clancy novel, with a real-world influence limited to warning about the potential for nuclear terrorism.
And it should be notice that Pierce is total racist who happily promotes violence and genocide. There is not any evidence that Clancy would promote nuclear war. If someone thinks that and begin attack on him due similarities with his novels and reality his place is mental hospital under strong medicine.
Beyond that, the details of the Turner Diaries, which start with efforts to overthrow a corrupt regime dominated by ethnic minorities, continues with campaigns if murder against minorities and minority-sympathizers, and ends with the extensive use of nuclear weapons targeted against population centres of said minorities, do match up with what the Nashis did.
The main difference is that the Nashis did not target population centres of said minorities like outside of their country's claimed frontiers. That can be explained by the peculiarities of Soviet demographics and their worldview: They viewed Ukrainians and Belarusians as simply confused Russians, and Turks (for instance) had a much more distant relationship with Tatars and Bashkirs than American Jews did with Israeli Jews. That the Nashis, unlike the Turner Diaries' protagonists, seem not to have had ambitions to reshape the world via nuclear genocide is also a feature; they wanted a racially "pure" Russia, and were uninterested in doing that to the entire world.
The main difference is that the Nashis did not target population centres of said minorities like outside of their country's claimed frontiers. That can be explained by the peculiarities of Soviet demographics and their worldview: They viewed Ukrainians and Belarusians as simply confused Russians, and Turks (for instance) had a much more distant relationship with Tatars and Bashkirs than American Jews did with Israeli Jews. That the Nashis, unlike the Turner Diaries' protagonists, seem not to have had ambitions to reshape the world via nuclear genocide is also a feature; they wanted a racially "pure" Russia, and were uninterested in doing that to the entire world.
I think that the Nashis not having ambitions to reshape the world was mostly because they were occupied fighting a civil war against the Communists and planning a genocide.
That does make me wonder what the Nashis would do if they had won the civil war and there hadn't been a global nuclear war.
Like if their expansionist plans was limited to 'Russian' land mostly populated by Russians or if they wanted take every land that had been controlled by Russia at one point like Finland, the Baltic states, Ukraine, and a good portion of Central Asia.
In either case, that would have brought the Nashis into conflict with NATO which has the potential of escalation with nuclear weapons.
On another subject, I wonder if the destruction of Old Russia means that Austria no longer has to be neutral and can join military alliances (like NATO).
The permanent neutrality of Austria is set by the 1955 Austrian State Treaty and its constitution, but since the Cold War is over and the Russian successor states are in no position to do anything Austria could reneg on the treaty and ammend the constitution.
Maybe they'll just keep their neutrality since the major threat to invasion is over and to placate the Russian Federation.
Last edited:
Even if Austria would be allowed to join to NATO why it would? There is not anyone who would threat Austria anyway and such no reason join to military alliances. And wouldn't Austria still be pretty effectively surrounded by NATO anyway at some point? And Austria probably still joined to EU ITTL.
We know that their nuclear targeting did largely spare Ukraine because Ukraine and Ukrainians were viewed as Russian, they did already annex territory from Ukraine and Latvia and Estonia, they had an awareness of Ukraine and Belarus as nuclear threats if not as power capable of launching preemptive attacks, and all the western tier of former Soviet republics save Lithuania were outside of NATO. Europe strikes me as likely.
From what little I know, Austrian neutrality seems to have become an element of national identity. Absent any threat to Austria and Europe, I do not see a reason to change. This is especially true since the EU seems to be more of a multi-speed organization than OTL.
Quite a few early Zionists actually advocated for German in Ottoman/Mandatory Palestine
Saw some people over on SV dunking all over the story because Sorairo is apparently a hack writer who revels in the mass slaughter of Russians and didn't portray the Fascist government as much of a villain as he did the Soviets. And how Russia dumped all its nukes on itself and all the nukes fired at the west miraculously were either intercepted or hit military targets away from cities or even just hit random forest. And how even then this scenario should mean the death of civilization within the decade.
You can really tell how much they didn't read the story and are just regurgitating an interpretation of one guy's summary of events.
You can really tell how much they didn't read the story and are just regurgitating an interpretation of one guy's summary of events.