Whereas Russian Fascists in FoM would frantically object that Barkashov's Russia "isn't what we mean!" that this is what their Fascist regime would look like once they take over the Tolstoyist government.
Last edited:
The Death of Russia - TL
- Thread starter Sorairo
- Start date
Whereas Russian Fascists in FoM would frantically object that Barkashov's Russia "isn't what we mean!" that this is what their Fascist regime would look like once they take over the Tolstoyist government.
It'd throw quite a lot of people into a loop, as Tolstoyist Russia serves as living proof that Russia wasn't doomed. That if things had gone even slightly differently, it could've become a democratic country, rather than destroying itself in fratricidal warfare.
To some, that would be vindication, while others would refuse to accept that.
Consequently, reconstruction will probably start with, essentially, tourist traps. The Kremlin and St. Basil's are likely to be rebuilt, once the cities are safe for habitation, as are some of the palaces of Petrograd (to house the art recovered from the vault, naturally). Some of the more famous Orthodox monasteries and churches elsewhere will follow.
However, the scale of the devastation is something worth considering. Even IOTL, there remain many ruined buildings from the Second World War scattered in city centers across Germany and Poland. Warsaw, technically, still hasn't been fully restored, and it benefited from actually getting a substantial chunk of investment from two governments strongly invested in the impression of legitimacy the city granted--and even then the Communist government initially proposed just leaving the city unrebuilt as a memorial. Moscow and Petrograd and the other big cities have all those problems plus NBC weapon remediation, and no pressing geopolitical need for the West to help them. Why bother with a Marshall Plan for a broken enemy that even China stopped bothering with?
So, who's paying for it? The Tsarist state has little money and will largely be depending on UNESCO stipends and aid packages from the US and EU, the latter of which are probably more interested in paying for vaccination and education among survivors to keep them from turning into a refugee crisis/disease reservoir. The FEK and Siberia have advantageous ties with China, but might not be inclined to help pay for reconstruction. Ukraine and Belarus and the Balts will range from indifferent to actively hostile to sending EU money east--and demand from Novgorod extraordinary concessions (probably in the form of gas pipeline deals) for their votes European institutions in its favor. There will also probably be a strong dependence on remittances from any refugees/immigrants who aren't too bitter to send a few euros 'home.'
There is a further complication, in that wartime devastation has also probably wrecked the rail and road networks that would be used to distribute aid. This has two consequences: first, that the surviving population will cluster close to the western frontiers or the surviving ports along the north, since large parts of the interior country will be functionally inaccessible. This will make it easier to distribute aid to the people, but will massively reduce the priority of reconstruction outside the parts nearest to the frontiers.
Well, actually, a third consequence: the famine won't stop when the war does.
I agree with most of this, but I don't think America would be very happy, even in Hetalia there are moments that are less comedic and more serious. I could see America being very bittersweet about the whole thing, because while the Cold War did end in America's favor, there were actual nuclear bombs that hit America and millions of people did die in the process.
This might be a more serious moment in the show.
With Russia completely obliterated, I can see the other Asian states try to jumpstart Eurasian integration way earlier since they would have an interest in trying to bring back stability to the continent.
Well, since all of the Central Asian 'stans are effectively under China's orbit, this Chinese-controlled "Eurasian Union" already de-facto exists, just not as an official named organization.
I di have to wonder what if anything is suppose to happen now? As was already stated most of the west believes it has reached the end of history and I have to wonder is that is true. I mean what is China going to do against the United west? Plus it's not like India is just going to ally with them considering their already existing conditions between them. Most dictatorships were destroyed as well so I have to ask what now?
Conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa and Myanmar are likely to continue.
What's stopping the west from intervention? I mean Russia is dead and China does not have the capability of actually getting there so what's stopping the French from continuing their dominance of the area?
Also not to mention there'll still be anger against the current economic system as well as Western hegemony. I understand why the author ended the story the way they did, but to be honest there'd still be some loose ends here overall.
Is there even anger at the economy or even the west? It seemed like the west was mostly growing from whatever few casualties they took and most political divisions were pushed down or discredited. As for western hegemony I honestly do not see how that will change anytime soon assuming China does not destroy itself as well considering how badly it went in Russia.
Many Western European cities and even Anchorage in the US were still nuked, I would not count this as escaping unharmed.
I mean there should be realistically, especially since the West is even more dominant than OTL and will definitely continue to support regimes friendly to them regardless of how much their citizens hate them. And of course the economy being the economy, the dominance and exploitation of it will definitely cause people to resent it as well.
On that note, maybe Siberia could be implied to have initially been the Golden Horde or the various Turkic Khanates of the Pontic Steppes before becoming, well, Siberia?
Or for that matter the earliest you could send them back to
Since considering they're an autarky and very agricultural they should survive an ISOT to very early on
Well could they survive there?
If not I think either against Napoleon or before WWI came about would be good shots
They should be able to survive considering that the most advanced weapon their neighbors could have is the crossbow and perhaps some muzzle-loading bombards. It is unlikely that they could face a serious threat in the event of conflict with a medieval power. Napoleon or the First World War are better prepared.
On that note, aside from a few reconstructed buildings of cultural and historical significance, I imagine the cities to more or less resemble Brasilia, Chandigarh, Islamabad, or Abuja in “vibe”, now you mentioned it.
Last edited:
Regarding the topic covered earlier, I think at some point the "we could have done more" issue will be raised... and the assessment will not be very generous to the West in terms of its record of preventing conflict and ethnic cleansing.
Rather, the idea that would emerge would probably be that the West "let Russia rot" until it finally exploded, standing by and eating popcorn as it watched the country implode into a nuclear civil war. And that they did such a thing solely out of pure "screw you, we won the Cold War, eat shit and die" jingoistic triumphalism.
In addition to the fact that the West actually doesn't give a damn about conflicts and ethnic cleansing, and that the idea of "we didn't intervene because we were afraid of provoking a nuclear war" was just an excuse because that was better than saying "we are racists and we don't care to intervene when people we believe are racially inferior are suffering and dying". I can see many people in TTL 2020 cocluding that this is true.
I am referring, of course, to the fact that, at the same time that Russia was imploding, the Balkan War and the Rwandan Genocide were occurring... and in the first case the West only swooped in to crush the country that looked suspiciously more similar to mini-Russia (while applauding and approving the fact that those who were not mini-Russia were doing exactly the same thing that the West used as a pretext to bomb Serbia). And in the second case they sat back and watched without intervening.
Which would make the idea of not intervening to avoid causing a further escalation seem like a lie.
Rather, the idea that would emerge would probably be that the West "let Russia rot" until it finally exploded, standing by and eating popcorn as it watched the country implode into a nuclear civil war. And that they did such a thing solely out of pure "screw you, we won the Cold War, eat shit and die" jingoistic triumphalism.
In addition to the fact that the West actually doesn't give a damn about conflicts and ethnic cleansing, and that the idea of "we didn't intervene because we were afraid of provoking a nuclear war" was just an excuse because that was better than saying "we are racists and we don't care to intervene when people we believe are racially inferior are suffering and dying". I can see many people in TTL 2020 cocluding that this is true.
I am referring, of course, to the fact that, at the same time that Russia was imploding, the Balkan War and the Rwandan Genocide were occurring... and in the first case the West only swooped in to crush the country that looked suspiciously more similar to mini-Russia (while applauding and approving the fact that those who were not mini-Russia were doing exactly the same thing that the West used as a pretext to bomb Serbia). And in the second case they sat back and watched without intervening.
Which would make the idea of not intervening to avoid causing a further escalation seem like a lie.
Last edited: