America's Funniest President: Mo Udall Presidency & Beyond

Reader mode
Sir William Jol

Sir William Jol

dsp19 said:
I imagine if a successful President Udall serves two terms, Askew wouldn’t face a serious primary fight. It’s still difficult to get a VP elected president. Papa Bush did it in 1988, Biden did it in 2020 after a hiatus, but it’s hard for the same party to win 3 straight times for president
Click to expand...
Well actually it might be easier the you think. Andrew Jackson's Vice President Martin Van Buren got elected President in 1836 succeeding Jackson. Dwight D. Eisenhower's Vice President Richard Nixon only narrowly lost the 1960 election to John F. Kennedy and successfully made his comeback in 1968. Lyndon B. Johnson's Vice President Hubert Humphrey narrowly lost the 1968 election to Richard Nixon and ran for the Democratic nomination again in 1972 losing to George McGovern. President Jimmy Carter's Vice President Walter Mondale won the Democratic nomination in 1984 and lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan's Vice President George H. W. Bush was elected President in 1988 in a landslide running on the coattails of Reagan's legacy. Bill Clinton's Vice President Al Gore only very narrowly lost the 2000 election to George W. Bush after the recount in Florida was ended by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. And of course Barack Obama's Vice President Joe Biden chose to site out on running in the 2016 election after he lost his son Beau to brain cancer in 2015 but made a comeback in 2020 defeating President Donald Trump. The 2016 election was very close and had Biden chosen to run, perhaps if his son sought treatment and the cancer went into remission, he would've won since he was the Vice President in a relatively popular administration. Heck even Hillary could've won in 2016 had she been chosen as Obama's VP in 2008. Former President Donald Trump's Vice President Mike Pence is considering a 2024 presidential bid and has polled well in polls not including Trump. Should President Joe Biden choose not to run for re-election (I know he already said he would but you never know for sure) his Vice President Kamala Harris would easily win the Democratic nomination with little competition (okay maybe she might face AOC or Pete Buttigieg but I don't think they could beat her in a primary with her experience as VP). So after the mid-20th Century (post-WWII) the Vice Presidency became a very good launching pad for the presidency.
 

Imp

Liking the timeline so far DVB!

Just wanted to throw my two pence into the whole Indian subcontinent war. This period was pretty bad in general for the whole subcontinent, with instability in Indian Punjab along with Afghanistan in chaos and Sri Lanka also beginning to see the beginnings of its own civil war. But with an Afghanistan that does not collapse, there will be major butterflies all around.

So the population of Afghanistan was around 15 million in 1979. Taking a par growth rate of 3.4%, this will give a population of some 19.5-20 million people just before the war kicks off. Pakistan on the other hand during this time had around 100-110 million people, so a population 5 times greater. Taking into account the top of the line (relatively) stuff Afghanistan has compared to Pakistan ITTL, and we can initially see Afghanistan making quick gains. The challenge will then be to keep making gains while holding on to what they have achieved.

Now a key point here is that Sino-Pakistan relations were already strong by this point and an earlier cutting off of American equipment being sold to Pakistan means this relationship would have deepened earlier on by the 80s here. Add to that the fact that the Karakoram Highway opened in 1978 (something that would still happen here) and you could really be seeing some major Chinese actions also occurring during this whole regional conflict. Now one of the main issues with the war you have presented is that China would not be sitting back and letting Pakistan take so much of a beating without trying to combat this in some sort. Now obviously I reckon the Afghanis would have made cutting off this highway a top priority as it prevents Chinese supplies from entering Pakistan and supporting their war effort, but I think some sort of explanation will be needed as to why China is not getting involved either diplomatically or even launching some attacks of its own. Perhaps the Soviet Union applies some pressure to ensure China stays out of the situation overly, along with the fact that both it and India have nukes even if Pakistan doesn't and that whole situation could turn ugly really fast. This would thus leave China being the one which would thus ensure the survival of a rump Pakistan, more on that in a bit.

Now wars between India and Pakistan have tended to not go on for longer than two months (the initial war over Kashmir admittedly went on for a year, but during that period India was also ensuring other states forcefully acceded to it, including launching Operation Polo to capture the Princely State of Hyderabad), with the war which liberated Bangladesh lasting a mere 13 days. Thus, for the war to go on for a year and a half at this point means that India must not be pursuing an aggressive strategy as otherwise a double pincer would mean the war should really be over in three months. This would make some sense as India was struggling economically at the time, and if you add India also getting involved in Sri Lanka like OTL then that would probably also help to explain the length of the conflict. Just keeping the focus on Kashmir should be enough to stretch the war for a long period, with India playing a defensive role along the rest of the frontier for most of the war.

There is also the point to note that Afghanistan would not be able to handle the ambitions it has set out to conquer - the North-West Frontier province at that time alone contained 75% of the hypothetical population of Afghanistan here (around 14-15 million) and Balochistan would just not be possible without Iranian intervention (which I don't see as occurring as they are likely trying to digest their victory over Iraq). Thus they would likely be looking to call it quits after capturing the NWFP, which I agree would take them a while and make the war last longer. So in the end they would see a moderate increase in land but a huge boost in population. India will likely look to capture all of Pakistani Kashmir and finally finish the job, so to speak. The point on the conflict between the Shia and Sunni in Kashmir might be a really interesting aspect to explore too. We might even see a "second partition" where the local Shias begin to kick out the Sunnis which leads to reprisals in Pakistan and thus another population transfer where the Sunnis leave and are replaced by Shias from the south. I could see the war being taken from an Afghan-Pakistan war to an Indo-Pakistan war with Indian offensives to take Lahore and drive to Karachi, with the aim to capture areas of significant Hindu populations in Sindh and keep them after the war along with Kashmir, in 1989 because it happens to be the Indian general election year lol. This will probably lead to successful offensives and lead to China throwing in the towel and threatening to actively get involved unless all sides come to the diplomatic table. Ironically, America might be the best place to sort this out and it could become an early major foreign policy victory for President Askew. As for the final borders, I expect Afghanistan to gain the NWFP and probably push their borders a bit south into Balochistan while India picks up all of Kashmir and parts of Sindh. This would still leave a sizeable rump Pakistan, although at this point it would likely just become completely dominated by Pakistani Punjab. This nation will likely become completely dependant on China, but will suffer now that there is no land border with China.

Not sure what happens to Pakistan after, maybe it falls to civil war after such a catastrophic defeat. With the remaining significant population of Hindus now in India, Shias will likely become the scapegoat and lead to the forced population transfers I mentioned earlier. Although the war would be a large drain on India, I can see Congress winning quite nicely - especially if butterflies mean Rajiv Gandhi is assassinated in '89, perhaps by Pakistani backed groups. This would mean Rao comes to power in '89 and would likely lead to Indian liberalisation in that year itself (significant because the balance of payments would have likely gotten even worse than it was in '91). Afghanistan would also see a massive surge in popularity for the ruling parties, with the new areas seeing a mix of support for joining Afghanistan and hating the fact they are now in Afghanistan respectively.

Another point to consider would be the equipment needed to fight the war. So likely China will manage to somehow supply Pakistan with its knock-off Soviet arms, while both India and Afghanistan buy loads of arms from the Soviets. And here lies an interesting matter. This might actually give the Soviet economy quite significant short term relief because it would mean cash flowing into their coffers through the selling of equipment and give Gorbachev some breathing space (along with all the money they have saved from decommissioning nukes, not getting involving in Afghanistan, not having ti clean up Chernobyl and now seeing a lot of arms, their economy is probably significantly healthier than what it was compared to OTL). Now the selling of arms matters because we can assume this war will probably be attrition heavy and thus both sides would likely use up a lot of equipment and so there will be a steady stream into Soviet coffers. There is also the fact to consider that the Soviet Union can now build pipelines directly to India to supply them with gas which would be a huge boon for both the Soviets and the Indians.

Sorry for this absolutely large paragraph wall, but hope it helps!
 

CountDVB

Imp said:
Liking the timeline so far DVB!

Just wanted to throw my two pence into the whole Indian subcontinent war. This period was pretty bad in general for the whole subcontinent, with instability in Indian Punjab along with Afghanistan in chaos and Sri Lanka also beginning to see the beginnings of its own civil war. But with an Afghanistan that does not collapse, there will be major butterflies all around.

So the population of Afghanistan was around 15 million in 1979. Taking a par growth rate of 3.4%, this will give a population of some 19.5-20 million people just before the war kicks off. Pakistan on the other hand during this time had around 100-110 million people, so a population 5 times greater. Taking into account the top of the line (relatively) stuff Afghanistan has compared to Pakistan ITTL, and we can initially see Afghanistan making quick gains. The challenge will then be to keep making gains while holding on to what they have achieved.

Now a key point here is that Sino-Pakistan relations were already strong by this point and an earlier cutting off of American equipment being sold to Pakistan means this relationship would have deepened earlier on by the 80s here. Add to that the fact that the Karakoram Highway opened in 1978 (something that would still happen here) and you could really be seeing some major Chinese actions also occurring during this whole regional conflict. Now one of the main issues with the war you have presented is that China would not be sitting back and letting Pakistan take so much of a beating without trying to combat this in some sort. Now obviously I reckon the Afghanis would have made cutting off this highway a top priority as it prevents Chinese supplies from entering Pakistan and supporting their war effort, but I think some sort of explanation will be needed as to why China is not getting involved either diplomatically or even launching some attacks of its own. Perhaps the Soviet Union applies some pressure to ensure China stays out of the situation overly, along with the fact that both it and India have nukes even if Pakistan doesn't and that whole situation could turn ugly really fast. This would thus leave China being the one which would thus ensure the survival of a rump Pakistan, more on that in a bit.

Now wars between India and Pakistan have tended to not go on for longer than two months (the initial war over Kashmir admittedly went on for a year, but during that period India was also ensuring other states forcefully acceded to it, including launching Operation Polo to capture the Princely State of Hyderabad), with the war which liberated Bangladesh lasting a mere 13 days. Thus, for the war to go on for a year and a half at this point means that India must not be pursuing an aggressive strategy as otherwise a double pincer would mean the war should really be over in three months. This would make some sense as India was struggling economically at the time, and if you add India also getting involved in Sri Lanka like OTL then that would probably also help to explain the length of the conflict. Just keeping the focus on Kashmir should be enough to stretch the war for a long period, with India playing a defensive role along the rest of the frontier for most of the war.

There is also the point to note that Afghanistan would not be able to handle the ambitions it has set out to conquer - the North-West Frontier province at that time alone contained 75% of the hypothetical population of Afghanistan here (around 14-15 million) and Balochistan would just not be possible without Iranian intervention (which I don't see as occurring as they are likely trying to digest their victory over Iraq). Thus they would likely be looking to call it quits after capturing the NWFP, which I agree would take them a while and make the war last longer. So in the end they would see a moderate increase in land but a huge boost in population. India will likely look to capture all of Pakistani Kashmir and finally finish the job, so to speak. The point on the conflict between the Shia and Sunni in Kashmir might be a really interesting aspect to explore too. We might even see a "second partition" where the local Shias begin to kick out the Sunnis which leads to reprisals in Pakistan and thus another population transfer where the Sunnis leave and are replaced by Shias from the south. I could see the war being taken from an Afghan-Pakistan war to an Indo-Pakistan war with Indian offensives to take Lahore and drive to Karachi, with the aim to capture areas of significant Hindu populations in Sindh and keep them after the war along with Kashmir, in 1989 because it happens to be the Indian general election year lol. This will probably lead to successful offensives and lead to China throwing in the towel and threatening to actively get involved unless all sides come to the diplomatic table. Ironically, America might be the best place to sort this out and it could become an early major foreign policy victory for President Askew. As for the final borders, I expect Afghanistan to gain the NWFP and probably push their borders a bit south into Balochistan while India picks up all of Kashmir and parts of Sindh. This would still leave a sizeable rump Pakistan, although at this point it would likely just become completely dominated by Pakistani Punjab. This nation will likely become completely dependant on China, but will suffer now that there is no land border with China.

Not sure what happens to Pakistan after, maybe it falls to civil war after such a catastrophic defeat. With the remaining significant population of Hindus now in India, Shias will likely become the scapegoat and lead to the forced population transfers I mentioned earlier. Although the war would be a large drain on India, I can see Congress winning quite nicely - especially if butterflies mean Rajiv Gandhi is assassinated in '89, perhaps by Pakistani backed groups. This would mean Rao comes to power in '89 and would likely lead to Indian liberalisation in that year itself (significant because the balance of payments would have likely gotten even worse than it was in '91). Afghanistan would also see a massive surge in popularity for the ruling parties, with the new areas seeing a mix of support for joining Afghanistan and hating the fact they are now in Afghanistan respectively.

Another point to consider would be the equipment needed to fight the war. So likely China will manage to somehow supply Pakistan with its knock-off Soviet arms, while both India and Afghanistan buy loads of arms from the Soviets. And here lies an interesting matter. This might actually give the Soviet economy quite significant short term relief because it would mean cash flowing into their coffers through the selling of equipment and give Gorbachev some breathing space (along with all the money they have saved from decommissioning nukes, not getting involving in Afghanistan, not having ti clean up Chernobyl and now seeing a lot of arms, their economy is probably significantly healthier than what it was compared to OTL). Now the selling of arms matters because we can assume this war will probably be attrition heavy and thus both sides would likely use up a lot of equipment and so there will be a steady stream into Soviet coffers. There is also the fact to consider that the Soviet Union can now build pipelines directly to India to supply them with gas which would be a huge boon for both the Soviets and the Indians.

Sorry for this absolutely large paragraph wall, but hope it helps!
Click to expand...
Thank you very much, I actually appreciate this since it gives me more to figure out and better understand this. :)

Yeah, China is pretty much pressured by the USSR to stay out of the conflict, especially since it started with Pakistan going with an unapproved nuclear program and then causing trouble over in Afghanistan. Like, it's one of those things where the Pakistani government dug themselves into a hole here they did not need to and China is convinced not to get involved since it would not be worth it. That and perhaps they also wanna see if Afghanistan would prove a better ally.

As for the war, it's getting tense and ugly... And well, wait and see what happens.

Yup, the USSR is gonna be better off without as much a mass and with Gorbachev doing some smarter economic reforms (a modernized NEP with a couple of ideas cribbed from Yugoslavia). Of course, the USSR is still gonna have to deal with their own issues, China is about to reach its own point of political crossroads.

I very much appreciate all of this input and your knowledge! I would like your input on what I have planned if you wanna hear ;)
 
Presidental Reflection: The Udall Administration (1981 - 1989) [Pt. 1]
  • Index

    • CountDVB

    Presidental Reflection: The Udall Administration (1981 - 1989) [Pt. 1]


    President Mo Udall conversing with secretary of State Jimmy Carter

    President: Morris King Udall (1981 - 1989)
    Vice President: Reuben Askew (1981 - 1989)
    Secretary of State: Jimmy Carter (1981 - 1989)
    Secretary of Defense: Benjamin O. Davis, Jr (1981 - 1989)
    Secretary of Housing & Urban Development: Moon Landrieu (1981 - 1989)
    Attorney General: Stephen Breyer (1981 - 1989)
    Secretary of the Interior: Cecil Andrus (1981 - 1989)
    Secretary of Transportation: Neil Goldschmidt (1981 - 1989)
    Secretary of Energy: Dixy Lee Ray (1981 - 1989)
    Secretary of the Treasury: W. Michael Blumenthal (1981 - 1989)
    Secretary of Agriculture: Norman Ernest Borlaug (1981 - 1989)
    Secretary of Labor: F. Ray Marshall (1981 - 1989)
    Secretary of Commerce: Juanita Kreps (1981 - 1989)
    Secretary of Health & Human Services: Patricia Roberts Harris (1981 - 1989)
    Secretary of Education: Joseph Daniel Duffey (1981 - 1989)
    UN Ambassador: Andrew Young (1981 - 1989)
    National Security Advisor: Edmund Muskie(1981 - 1989)​

    With the twelve-year White House rule by the Republicans ending with the loss of President Reagan, many voters decided it was time for a change. Despite his initial troubles back in 1976 and concerns over his Parkinson's, with the winds behind the Democrats, many of the progressive heavyweights through their support behind Udall and riding on a wave of charisma, hope and reform. Mo Udall would become president. He would inherit the US with a troublesome economy caused by the Oil Crisis of 1979 along with Reagan's blunder over in Panama and under a period of maliase and discontent. Yet, with his wry smile and plenty of support, Udall would go forward to go and change that.

    And he would. With economic actions that saw money go into the hands of the people to stimulate the economy, optimism would soar. Challenges would come his way, but he would handle him and he would begin achieving more and more his goals. He would finally reign in the Tobacco industry and that would lead to an even bigger accomplishment of foiling a conspiracy by oil companies and their affiliates to lie to the public about manmade climate change for the sake of profit. He would be able to give Americans quality and timely healthcare with the creation of the National Bureau of Healthcare. That in it of itself would be help to combat the HIV/AIDS combat. These various factors along with the Udall administration getting the 27th amendment, a reformed version of the Equal Rights Amendemnt, passed, would lead to the oncoming cultural phenomenon in the rise of third wave feminism and SATMIN+ civil rights support.

    Unsurprisingly, Askew would leave with an extensively high approval rating as president, being considered among the all-time greats alongside Washington and FDR. His accomplishments in major reforms domestically along with more amicable and humanitarian approach in foreign affairs would be the major things people reflected on:

    Economy
    Having inherited a troublesome economy, damaged by outside forces along with being mishandled by shoddy economic policies, MKU had his work cut out for him entering office. As such, a radical idea was slowly being introduced in guaranteed income, in waging war on poverty like Lyndon B Johnson hoped. Here, it was tried through an economic stimulus relief package that gave the American people money in their hands to spend on what was needed. With it, people began spending on food, bills and even a few luxuries though the tough times have began establishing some new frugal spending patterns, especially with other changes coming in. However, while getting people to go and spend money, the bigger issue laid in for the government collecting revenue and undoing most of the economic policies set in by Reagan. And this especially included in dealing with the major corporations.

    Stock buybacks became much more regulated and restricted, with the likelihood of just cancellation of stock buybacks a looming possibility for many of these companies. Corporate taxes were reformed a bit while the cuts the Reagan administration did to the top marginal tax rates would be undone, raising them off so the top 1% would pay their fair share. Additionally, dividends & capital gains taxes would see a sharp increase for them along with other plans to try and ensure the massively wealthy could not dodge out of paying taxes. This along with the introduction of return-free filing of taxes helped ease people into this, especially as various scandals and revelations would lead to more suspicion and hostility toward most of the rich. Another target aimed for many of these massively uberrich would bethe removal of the income cap on Social Security, especially with the funds also going into the National Bureau of Healthcare. Despite the concerns, these changes were put in as best as possible and with the money being invested into infrastructure and projects to stimulate the economy, it would be managing to pay off. Soon, it was an economic boom, with the young adults and teenagers spending more, albeit on either experiences or some of the newer luxuries, such as home computers or even video game consoles. Then there came of the changing of how land would be taxed, that of the rise of land value tax on a federal level to go and eventually superceding and repalcing housing taxes, with the hopes of forcing productive and beneficial infrastructure development while also helping to make homes more affordable, especially with the babyboomers coming fully into age as well as the oldest of the brightbangers.

    Environment
    MKU, prior to the start of the presidency, had a mixed, but overall positive track record over on environmentalism. He certainly did not see himself becoming a 'green champion' of a president when he ran and was sworn in. However, United States vs. Enron would change all of that. It confimed not only that manmade climate change was a real and legitmate threat, but that one of the main perpetrators, that being fossil fuel companies, were planning on suppessing their own research and a conspiracy of fruad to the American public, due to fear of being held responsible and affecting their profit margins. Coming off the success of dealing with Big Tobacco along with the legitimate shock, it was unsurprising that he would grow to become a much more ecoprotective president. With the support of people, alot of the groundwork would be laid in the future; the transition from coal over to renewable energy, primarily nuclear, which would see the expansion and acceleration of nuclear power plants. Despite the concerns of potential trouble, money and effort were spent for optimal safety along with developments for effiency. Additionally, the sense of urgency meant that other options like solar and wind, which were not viable at the time and would not be for a couple of decades, had to be sidelined, especially when further questions on the logistics, recyability and so on of solar panels, wind turbines and so on had to be answered.

    Another would be the massive expansive expansion of Amtrak. With the money being made by Conrail, the Udall government began purchasing more and more of the major rails to expand on this. This coincided with environmentalist policies based on two factors; public transporation like buses and trains would cut down the number of cars on the road and thus the pollution generated. This became moreso with how the French were experimented with high speed rail and their new system that the US began considerating emulating. This would be put to the test when the Udall administration finished their purchase of the rail network and would begin the process of electrification, justifying it through this along with jobs, especially with nuclear power going into the electric generation. While such a herculean effort would take plenty of time, especially one that would be finished long after his term, it would be seen as a worthwhile investment, especially as beyond address cars, it could also address planes to a degree. Of course, one massive aid to this would also be the Udall administration ending the fuel subsidies on the fossil fuel companies and later the first carbon taxes on them. Gasoline companies naturally attempted to counter this by raising gas prices, hoping to impact Udall's popularity, but this just backfired on them as it just cemented the hostile view the American public had on them. The workers there also were growing smarter and began unionzing, suspecting the top brass would try and take the loss from them. With this, cars are forced to focus on effiency and later safety while the long-term rammifications of this would lead to a shift in thinking of urban and suburban planning. Expansion of green places in cities, green roofing, more trees, ecoefficient homes, tram suburbs and so on would become the dominant way, especially since they were built on prior patterns establishes in ecohomes and a reliance on community due to the tough times of the Reagan administration.
     
    Last edited:
  • Index

    • historybuff

    Some ideas for this version of the Soviet Union. Research about the Congress of People's Deputies, to see if a version of it can come to power in TTL 1989 or not.
     

    Imp

    CountDVB said:
    Thank you very much, I actually appreciate this since it gives me more to figure out and better understand this. :)

    Yeah, China is pretty much pressured by the USSR to stay out of the conflict, especially since it started with Pakistan going with an unapproved nuclear program and then causing trouble over in Afghanistan. Like, it's one of those things where the Pakistani government dug themselves into a hole here they did not need to and China is convinced not to get involved since it would not be worth it. That and perhaps they also wanna see if Afghanistan would prove a better ally.

    As for the war, it's getting tense and ugly... And well, wait and see what happens.

    Yup, the USSR is gonna be better off without as much a mass and with Gorbachev doing some smarter economic reforms (a modernized NEP with a couple of ideas cribbed from Yugoslavia). Of course, the USSR is still gonna have to deal with their own issues, China is about to reach its own point of political crossroads.

    I very much appreciate all of this input and your knowledge! I would like your input on what I have planned if you wanna hear ;)
    Click to expand...
    Very happy you didn't mind the text wall! :)

    I think it is a really interesting point to consider China perhaps looking at Afghanistan as a more reliable ally as it is something I hadn't actually considered. It does actually make some sense in that, especially if we see the first use of what has become OTL China's trademark which is foreign investment into developing nations along with the threat of debt-trapping. If the Afghanis are smart enough, they could play both the Soviets and the Chinese off of each other and really benefit.

    I am definitely looking forward to seeing how the war ends!

    Yea, Gorbachev has a good deal more time here. Perhaps he may opt for a significantly slower Glasnost as he can afford to work out the kinks in the economy while slowly opening up. This would have the added benefit of allowing the state to weather through some of the louder dissent and suppress it even. It does seem that the Soviets will however have to indeed deal with their issues.

    And I would absolutely love to hear what you have planned! :D
     

    CountDVB

    Imp said:
    Very happy you didn't mind the text wall! :)

    I think it is a really interesting point to consider China perhaps looking at Afghanistan as a more reliable ally as it is something I hadn't actually considered. It does actually make some sense in that, especially if we see the first use of what has become OTL China's trademark which is foreign investment into developing nations along with the threat of debt-trapping. If the Afghanis are smart enough, they could play both the Soviets and the Chinese off of each other and really benefit.

    I am definitely looking forward to seeing how the war ends!

    Yea, Gorbachev has a good deal more time here. Perhaps he may opt for a significantly slower Glasnost as he can afford to work out the kinks in the economy while slowly opening up. This would have the added benefit of allowing the state to weather through some of the louder dissent and suppress it even. It does seem that the Soviets will however have to indeed deal with their issues.

    And I would absolutely love to hear what you have planned! :D
    Click to expand...
    Afghanistan is more trying to build itself and keeping on relatively okay terms with everyone. They will definitely take stoc of the Chinese though at this point, China is lagging a bit compared to OTL due to US/Chinese relations not as open and that is gonna have an effect.

    Also, given how India fought alongside the rebelling Shia, they may actually be more sympathic to them there.

    Yeah, Gorbachev has his work cut out. Granted, the dissent is still coming and well, it's the result of the USSR's lackluster foreign policy and remnants of the old ways, as we saw in the Phosphate War.
     

    CountDVB

    historybuff said:
    Some ideas for this version of the Soviet Union. Research about the Congress of People's Deputies, to see if a version of it can come to power in TTL 1989 or not.
    Click to expand...
    Maybe, yeah though admittingly this is not much of my forte in understanding how it work and so on, especially with the terminology. Though I will keep that in mind with what is coming!
     

    dsp19

    I really like this timeline! Will have to go back to read it carefully (and of course throw some likes in there) just in case I have a John Glenn administration in my TL (for Democratic cabinet officials)
     

    historybuff

    Understood, just something to research, since it happened in our 1989, curious if some form of a democratically elected parliament could form in this version of the USSR.
     
    Reader mode
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Top
    Top