It's possible, but hard, to avoid the civil war. Beyond that, anything is really down to the skill of the player. Nothing is hard coded, the odds are just stacked heavily against Germany (they usually get a civil war including mass rebellion across their eastern territories, the industry and military they are up against is much bigger than them, the western powers could attack them during the civil war or otherwise). Really in a game like HOI4, it's just down to the skill and knowledge of the player, unless you literally hard code them to lose. I mean, people have done Luxembourg world conquests in HOI4, so you see what I mean.
Thousand-Week Reich - A 'realistic' Nazi victory scenario
- Thread starter AP246
- Start date
It's possible, but hard, to avoid the civil war. Beyond that, anything is really down to the skill of the player. Nothing is hard coded, the odds are just stacked heavily against Germany (they usually get a civil war including mass rebellion across their eastern territories, the industry and military they are up against is much bigger than them, the western powers could attack them during the civil war or otherwise). Really in a game like HOI4, it's just down to the skill and knowledge of the player, unless you literally hard code them to lose. I mean, people have done Luxembourg world conquests in HOI4, so you see what I mean.
As I understand it, it is technically two questions: can the German Civil War be avoided (yes, but the path there is tricky and has costs of its own), and can the collapse of the Reich be avoided (within the timeframe of the mod, yes, even if the German Civil War fires, but it all but requires a quick victory if so).
Spaceflight Article (fixed)
The Nazi Astronaut - Fixed (kinda)
So, with Apollo 11's 50th anniversary coming up and all the documentaries it's bringing, it got me thinking about how space exploration could look in TWR, since there's no cold war and presumably no space race. I haven't thought about that in itself now, but it's definitely something interesting I'd like to explore in future!
What I did want to do is fix the many embarrassing spelling and syntax mistakes in my one piece that did involve spaceflight. However, I realised the original svg was lost along with my old laptop... Well, I wasn't going to let that stop me, so I simply got the png file from online where I'd uploaded it and manually matched up new text on top of the old, editing where I could. You can kinda tell it's been edited but, oh well, I just wanted to fix the mistakes.
Well, here it is:
So, with Apollo 11's 50th anniversary coming up and all the documentaries it's bringing, it got me thinking about how space exploration could look in TWR, since there's no cold war and presumably no space race. I haven't thought about that in itself now, but it's definitely something interesting I'd like to explore in future!
What I did want to do is fix the many embarrassing spelling and syntax mistakes in my one piece that did involve spaceflight. However, I realised the original svg was lost along with my old laptop... Well, I wasn't going to let that stop me, so I simply got the png file from online where I'd uploaded it and manually matched up new text on top of the old, editing where I could. You can kinda tell it's been edited but, oh well, I just wanted to fix the mistakes.
Well, here it is:
Last edited:
With the end of the war I think Petain’s France should be classified as a German ally rather than a puppet state. This being because it’s been given back northern France and still has a sizable colonial empire and fleet. Therefore, it’s totally capable of resisting complete Nazi subjugation.
Also, I think Turkey and the post-Soviet states in the Caucasus’ should be TA members or associates. Maybe Iraq too given neighboring Syria.
I doubt they'd create a single language, and I think despite everything it'd have to be pretty decentralised between the three groups. Yes, I feel like there's probably some tension and some people who aren't happy with it, especially perhaps by the modern day, but most people are on board.
Baltica is probably even more complex and decentralised, but it's a small country so I think most people are ok with the new status quo.
So, what is the dynamic between the three states comprising Zapadoslavia like?
Poland is dominant, but not as much as you'd expect. Their population was the most devastated proportionally of the three countries, and the most of any country under Nazi occupation, with somewhat over half being killed during the Nazi period. Poland still remains the largest of the three, but not by as much as it would have otherwise. Second is Czechia, and third and smallest is Slovakia.
In terms of relations between the three, I'd say pretty good, since they all see each other as allies against the Nazis... to an extent. Some old rivalries may remain, but in a more 'friendly' way, like between the countries within the UK, except I think secessionism is probably less popular than it is in Scotland for example.
The biggest sticking point is probably Slovakia being seen as having 'got off easy', since a small puppet state of Slovakia was created by the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia. The Slovaks still suffered under the Nazi occupation, but undoubtable the least, being mostly not under direct German control.
Anyways, what about Armenia and Georgia? How did they gain independence during the fall of the USSR to the Nazis?
I haven't explored stuff in detail. I remember during research there was some vague stuff about an attempt for Georgian nationalists to secede, which i thought could happen and they become an independent state under loose Nazi influence.I haven't explored stuff in detail. I remember during research there was some vague stuff about an attempt for Georgian nationalists to secede, which i thought could happen and they become an independent state under loose Nazi influence.
If you ask someone from Zapadoslavia or Baltica what is his/her opinion about the Karelia Dispute, how would she/he answer? Would he answer that he supports Russia's claim to Karelia?
That's a good question. I feel like people from Zapadoslavia would be softly in support of Russia, but perhaps not all that passionately since it doesn't concern them directly. Baltica is more interesting. I'd assume Estonians there would perhaps support Finland.
I don't think necessarily. I see it being a federal nation with a high degree of autonomy for the states, but probably more usual that a Belgium-like situation.
While Lithuanians and Latvians would be more pro-Russia in their opinion on the Karelia Dispute, arguing that this legacy of Nazi Victory cannot stand.
Here's the whole thing
This might be a bit late in terms of criticism, but many Finns IOTL and ITTL would argue against presenting the Winter War as the beginning of a dispute over Karelia between Finland and the Soviet Union. Arguably, the better starting point would be 1917-1920, the breakup of the Russian Empire and the creation of an independent Finland. At that time there was the first real effort to create a "Greater Finland" including the areas inhabited by the Finnic Karelians, and that goal was supported by a major proportion of the Finnish population. ITTL, Finland can well argue that when the Russian Empire broke up, the Karelian areas were not the property of the newly created Soviet state, but should have been for ethnic, linguistic and cultural reasons included in an independent Finnish/"pan-Finnic" realm. Then we also have to remember that the ethnic Karelians had been living in these areas for centuries, and their settlement in the area that carries the name of their ethnic group also predated Russian settlement, much of which was comparatively recent.
In the 1920 Treaty of Tartu, Finland received only a small part of its claims in Karelia, which was a big disappointment to many nationalists in Finland, to the extent that some called the treaty "shameful". In the treaty, the Soviet state did affirm the cultural and political rights of the Karelians, and promised to uphold them, as a sort of quid pro quo of the area inhabited by ethnic Karelians not becoming a part of Finland. As is well known, this promise by the Soviet government was soon broken, and what efforts there were to maintain a politically and culturally autonomous Karelia in the 20s and early 30s were squashed in the Stalinist era. The Finns and the Karelians in Soviet Karelia were heavily targeted in Stalin's purges, moreso than the ethnic Russians living in the Karelian areas. In the 30s, many people would come from the USSR to Finland to tell the Finnish authorities and the press about the repression faced by the Finnic people in Soviet Karelia.
So this was the background before the Winter War and the Continuation War, and the Finns would use this background to argue that the Russians have no more right to Karelia than Finland does. Quite obviously the USSR failed to uphold the rights of the indigenous Finnic people in Karelia, and thus for the ethnic Karelians, the Finnish conquest during WWII was a real liberation from Stalinist rule. Due to the history of the Karelians stretching back to the years after WWI and beyond, the issue of Karelia is not only or even predominately tied to the Nazi attack against the USSR, the Finns (and whoever supports them) would argue. The Karelians would need to be considered as having rights as the indigenous population in Karelia (moreso than Russians, even), and their will certainly would not be returning the areas they inhabit to a Russian state.
Now, there would be the fact that the Finns would have expelled the great majority of the ethnic Russian population from the Karelian areas at the end of the war. This is an argument the Russians would use, that returning these areas would be right due to the crime of ethnic cleansing committed by the Finns against Russians, the original inhabitants of the area having to flee from it post-WWII. But then, this is the same argument that could be used today by Germany about East Prussia or by Finland about the Karelian areas Finland lost to the USSR since 1944. The fact on the ground is that these areas have been (IOTL, on one hand, and ITTL, on the other) inhabited be their current populations for several decades. If Finland now demanded its 1920 borders back, Russia would definitely argue about the rights of the Russians living in those Karelian areas, to keep their homes, their communities, and their connection to the Russian state and society. The same would apply to the Finns and Karelians living in Karelia ITTL: giving the Karelian areas to Russia would violate the rights of the people living in Karelia, as they would either have to accept becoming Russian citizens/subjects, or then they would have to leave their homes to become refugees in Finland or elsewhere. The Finns would here argue that many if not most of these people would have roots in Karelia stretching back centuries, as well - something that is not true about the ethnic Russians living in Vyborg or Kaliningrad IOTL. So in that sense the Finnish argument for the rights of the Karelians would be even stronger ITTL than the Russian argument for the ethnic Russians in formerly Finnish Karelia or in the Kaliningrad area IOTL.
So, as you can see, "the Finns conquering the area in league with the Nazis" would be only one side of the argument ITTL, and the Finns could and would level other arguments for keeping Karelia as a part of Finland.
Last edited:
This might be a bit late in terms of criticism, but many Finns IOTL and ITTL would argue against presenting the Winter War as the beginning of a dispute over Karelia between Finland and the Soviet Union. Arguably, the better starting point would be 1917-1920, the breakup of the Russian Empire and the creation of an independent Finland. At that time there was the first real effort to create a "Greater Finland" including the areas inhabited by the Finnic Karelians, and that goal was supported by a major proportion of the Finnish population. ITTL, Finland can well argue that when the Russian Empire broke up, the Karelian areas were not the property of the newly created Soviet state, but should have been for ethnic, linguistic and cultural reasons included in an independent Finnish/"pan-Finnic" realm. Then we also have to remember that the ethnic Karelians had been living in these areas for centuries, and their settlement in the area that carries the name of their ethnic group also predated Russian settlement, much of which was comparatively recent.
In the 1920 Treaty of Tartu, Finland received only a small part of its claims in Karelia, which was a big disappointment to many nationalists in Finland, to the extent that some called the treaty "shameful". In the treaty, the Soviet state did affirm the cultural and political rights of the Karelians, and promised to uphold them, as a sort of quid pro quo of the area inhabited by ethnic Karelians not becoming a part of Finland. As is well known, this promise by the Soviet government was soon broken, and what efforts there were to maintain a politically and culturally autonomous Karelia in the 20s and early 30s were squashed in the Stalinist era. The Finns and the Karelians in Soviet Karelia were heavily targeted in Stalin's purges, moreso than the ethnic Russians living in the Karelian areas. In the 30s, many people would come from the USSR to Finland to tell the Finnish authorities and the press about the repression faced by the Finnic people in Soviet Karelia.
So this was the background before the Winter War and the Continuation War, and the Finns would use this background to argue that the Russians have no more right to Karelia than Finland does. Quite obviously the USSR failed to uphold the rights of the indigenous Finnic people in Karelia, and thus for the ethnic Karelians, the Finnish conquest during WWII was a real liberation from Stalinist rule. Due to the history of the Karelians stretching back to the years after WWI and beyond, the issue of Karelia is not only or even predominately tied to the Nazi attack against the USSR, the Finns (and whoever supports them) would argue. The Karelians would need to be considered as having rights as the indigenous population in Karelia (moreso than Russians, even), and their will certainly would not be returning the areas they inhabit to a Russian state.
Now, there would be the fact that the Finns would have expelled the great majority of the ethnic Russian population from the Karelian areas at the end of the war. This is an argument the Russians would use, that returning these areas would be right due to the crime of ethnic cleansing committed by the Finns against Russians, the original inhabitants of the area having to flee from it post-WWII. But then, this is the same argument that could be used today by Germany about East Prussia or by Finland about the Karelian areas Finland lost to the USSR since 1944. The fact on the ground is that these areas have been (IOTL, on one hand, and ITTL, on the other) inhabited be their current populations for several decades. If Finland now demanded its 1920 borders back, Russia would definitely argue about the rights of the Russians living in those Karelian areas, to keep their homes, their communities, and their connection to the Russian state and society. The same would apply to the Finns and Karelians living in Karelia ITTL: giving the Karelian areas to Russia would violate the rights of the people living in Karelia, as they would either have to accept becoming Russian citizens/subjects, or then they would have to leave their homes to become refugees in Finland or elsewhere. The Finns would here argue that many if not most of these people would have roots in Karelia stretching back centuries, as well - something that is not true about the ethnic Russians living in Vyborg or Kaliningrad IOTL. So in that sense the Finnish argument for the rights of the Karelians would be even stronger ITTL than the Russian argument for the ethnic Russians in formerly Finnish Karelia or in the Kaliningrad area IOTL.
So, as you can see, "the Finns conquering the area in league with the Nazis" would be only one side of the argument ITTL, and the Finns could and would level other arguments for keeping Karelia as a part of Finland.
This