Molotov (Quantum 7)

[Xenarthral]

Originally Posted by Greystar

Then I'd go with saying the There is No North and South Korea or maybe say it was annexed by Communist China (entirely, not just influenced by).

I fail to see how that would produce glamorous hapkido-using assassins
(or how Molotov's Communist China could annex anything it didn't on
Homeline). A more Cinematic-Bondian-Mad Scientist approach would be
more likely to achieve the preferred result, say, a non-aligned (anti-Japanese
and thus anti-west*, anti-Chinese and thus anti-communist) dictatorship
ruled by the insidious Doctor Kim.

*No Korean War will affect Japan, though.

[fredtheobviouspseudonym]

Assume that FDR does NOT replace Henry Wallace as Veep; so the latter replaces the former on April 12, 1945.

Wallace, as a Progressive, was far less confrontational vis a vis Communism than Truman; he might well have been more willing to concede Soviet interests in Eastern Europe and other places. From britannica.com: "In his 1948 campaign as the Progressive's presidential nominee, in which he received more than one million votes, Wallace advocated closer cooperation with the Soviet Union, United Nations administration of foreign aid, and arms reduction. Later he broke with the Progressives and returned to private life."

If so, he might well have lost the 1948 race to Tom Dewey. You might draw some conclusions about the rest of US diplomatic history and the Cold War from that.

[smurf]

I'm lost...

OK I get that the 'USSR' is a dictatorship, no deviation there.
And Representative Democracy can mean nigh anything, from USA to France. One with limited state influence and the other with a heavy or social democratic influences.

There is a deviation from the brown envelope treaty of the Potsdam conference in 1944.

So what is a 'Social Republic' exactly? How does it differ from the Stalinist dictatorship?

1956 is also the year that the Hungary revolt did not happen nor the Suez crisis?

How can there be a NATO if some of the big players are not in it. How did Switzerland become a buffer state?

What about the EEC/EU/ECSC from the Treaty of Rome to Paris...

Finland won its independence on 6th December 1917 (IIRC). And by 1918-19 Hungary succeeded from Austria. Is Marshal Tito still kicking about in Yugoslavia did he make his declaration in 1948?

sorry, but some questions..

ignore me for I have study a bit of history...;p

[Moe Lane]

Originally Posted by smurf

I'm lost...

OK I get that the 'USSR' is a dictatorship, no deviation there.
And Representative Democracy can mean nigh anything, from USA to France. One with limited state influence and the other with a heavy or social democratic influences.

There is a deviation from the brown envelope treaty of the Potsdam conference in 1944.

So what is a 'Social Republic' exactly? How does it differ from the Stalinist dictatorship?

It's a representative democracy where the largest minority party is both Marxist, and subsidized by the Soviet Union. And one where the inhabitants are darned careful to not offend their very big neighbor to the east, which includes using terms of nomenclature which are apparently going a long way from them sending the tanks over the border.

1956 is also the year that the Hungary revolt did not happen nor the Suez crisis?

That's why I picked 1956. No sense in making the PCs wait around too long for either. Hungary is obliquely referenced; the Suez crisis... flip of a coin if it happens. Europe draws a lot of attention.

How can there be a NATO if some of the big players are not in it. How did Switzerland become a buffer state?

The only one missing from Homeline's version is West Germany, and that wouldn't have happened until 1955 anyway: for that matter, blue countries refer to buffer/neutral states. Switzerland and Sweden are both neutrals.

What about the EEC/EU/ECSC from the Treaty of Rome to Paris...

The Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957 in Homeline... which I had to look up, because frankly I didn't really care overmuch about the EEC in the first place. :)

Finland won its independence on 6th December 1917 (IIRC). And by 1918-19 Hungary succeeded from Austria. Is Marshal Tito still kicking about in Yugoslavia did he make his declaration in 1948?

And in Molotov's 1945 Finland, Austria, Hungary and Yugoslavia mostly found themselves either occupied or bordering a large, avowedly expansionist nation-state which wants to put up a buffer zone between it and the West more or less on the cheap. Molotov simply couldn't run the USSR the way that Stalin did, and so he put together a postwar environment where he could keep NATO at arms' length without having to keep large armies in the field. It's not really working all that well, of course, but then if the situation is too stable then it'd be kind of boring to play in.

sorry, but some questions..

ignore me for I have study a bit of history...;p

No, questions mean that it got read. Which is why I put 'em up here. Well, that, and to encourage other people to put up their own. :)

[smurf]

It's a representative democracy where the largest minority party is both Marxist, and subsidized by the Soviet Union. And one where the inhabitants are darned careful to not offend their very big neighbor to the east, which includes using terms of nomenclature which are apparently going a long way from them sending the tanks over the border.

OK - by Marxist in this context is Stalinist and has nothing to do with dialectical thought but dogmatic determinism. Could be interesting for Trotskyists! BTW does he survive in this time line?

That's why I picked 1956. No sense in making the PCs wait around too long for either. Hungary is obliquely referenced; the Suez crisis... flip of a coin if it happens. Europe draws a lot of attention.

That's a bit unfair on Egypt, so I would say Nasser is going to lock up the Canal. But how will the British/French and USA deal with it?

The only one missing from Homeline's version is West Germany, and that wouldn't have happened until 1955 anyway: for that matter, blue countries refer to buffer/neutral states. Switzerland and Sweden are both neutrals.

Usually it's to the victor the spoils. But in this timeline do foreign troops stamp over Germany? What about Marshal Zhukov's Army does he get it to Berlin?

The Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957 in Homeline... which I had to look up, because frankly I didn't really care overmuch about the EEC in the first place. :)

OK but that doesn't mean it did not happen...European Coal and Steel Community from 1951 - go wiki it.

IMO the 'Social Democracies' merely represent the Stalinist Satalites of the real post war set up. All were 'independent' apart from the independent bit and risking Russian tanks driving up the main street.

ooh, if Germany is not split then there is no Berlin Airlift (1948).

Sorry alternative time lines are really tough. I did a cyberpunk one about 15 years ago, most of it has come true! We expanded the dates but reality happens alot quicker.

[Xenarthral]

Originally Posted by smurf

Could be interesting for Trotskyists! BTW does he survive in this time line?

Considering that the POD is in 1941 it stands to reason that anybody dying
in 1940 or earlier on Homeline did so on Molotov too.

[Razgovory]

Originally Posted by Moe Lane

It's a representative democracy where the largest minority party is both Marxist, and subsidized by the Soviet Union. And one where the inhabitants are darned careful to not offend their very big neighbor to the east, which includes using terms of nomenclature which are apparently going a long way from them sending the tanks over the border.

This doesn't sound that different then parts of Western Europe after the war.