Thousand-Week Reich - A 'realistic' Nazi victory scenario

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.

Nice post, however in this bit the analogy doesn't really seem to fit as Germany can't use that argument about East Prussia today, nor could Finland use that argument about the areas lost in 1944 because Germany and Finland were on the losing side in OTL and there hasn't been any major event (i.e. another major conflict or at least substantial unopposed military action) to reverse this and their acceptance of such.

In TTL, Russia was on the losing side...for a while. Hence Karelia was lost to Finland. In a European order that was maintained by a victorious Nazi Germany (thus whatever arguments Finland did use to maintain a claim on Karelia, there would always be the problem that they finally fully obtained Karelia only during a period of Nazi domination and basically in alliance with (or more diplomatically co-belligerence with) Nazi Germany). But then Nazi Germany collapsed and another war ensued (i.e. Round 2 of sorts) in which Russia and the West Slavs liberated themselves from Nazi control (i.e. reversing the order maintained by the Nazis). And unlike in OTL where the Soviet Union collapsed a full 47 years after Germany lost East Prussia and Finland lost some territories (which means anyone who as even 20 years old at the time in those areas would have been nearly 70 in 1991), here Nazi Germany collapses in 1960. That is just 14-15 years after the Soviet Union lost Karelia. It wouldn't be several decades. It wouldn't even be two decades fully. Even stretching it out to when Russia is fully reunited under the Soviet government in 1972 ITTL that's just 27 years. Most people who were expelled from Karelia in 1945 are quite likely alive and very much remember their homes. It also seems quite a stretch that between 1960 and 1972, there wouldn't have been a partially successful attempt to regain Karelia in light of the fact that none of the western Allies are likely to actually oppose Russian attempts to regain it since they would be very unlikely to want to legitimize Finnish control over the area because they may associate it with the Nazi era of domination of Europe (even if they don't actually oppose Finnish control and even if that dispute pre-dated the Nazis in origin and was mostly independent of it). I would expect at the very least that between 1960 and 1972 in TTL that at least parts of Karelia would have been reoccupied by Russia even if they don't fully re-take it.

It also seems far more likely that even with the Finnish arguments proposed, that the conventions to settle the post-Nazi order in Europe would likely at best only support a return to the population situation of the 1920s or to a settlement based on that situation, which would mean that the Kola peninsula and some parts of Karelia would be returned to Russia to allow for those expelled to return home and that other areas might be subject to a plebiscite based on the surviving pre-war population (including those still resident and the expellees) voting on what they wanted for the future of the territory (though I would expect Russia and Finland to heavily dispute this with Russia calling for descendants of expellees to be be considered part of the electorate for the plebiscite while Finland would want to include any settlers in the vote or at least any persons born in the territories whether to residents or settlers - this dispute over who should be eligible to vote could be one of those sticking points that keeps the dispute simmering rather like the Western Sahara dispute).
 
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.:)

Ah, thank you! I was not very aware of this and it's interesting. Cheers. I guess that'll be factored into the timeline.
 

SpudNutimus

Banned
Fixed the Italian border on this thing.
twreurope 3.png
 
If anyone remembers my Vietnam magazine (it's like my favourite work of alt history of mine, do check it out)... well I decided to go back to that format (and recycle the asset lazily). Here's a sneak peak.

flowRoot4204.png
 
If anyone remembers my Vietnam magazine (it's like my favourite work of alt history of mine, do check it out)... well I decided to go back to that format (and recycle the asset lazily). Here's a sneak peak.

flowRoot4204.png
So, Syria is pretty much just the fascist North Korea of the Middle East in TWR?
 
A comparison with Saddam's Iraq is probably more apt, since they get involved in multiple wars before they're destroyed.

BTW, you mention Syria as being "Fascism's last bastion."

Does that mean democracy is more common by the ITTL present day?
 

SpudNutimus

Banned
I made this a few months ago and just realized that I forgot to put it here. You may have seen it on the TWR HOI4 mod subreddit where AP246 posted it, although I've updated it slightly since then.
twr_polandball_2.png
 
BTW, you mention Syria as being "Fascism's last bastion."

Does that mean democracy is more common by the ITTL present day?
I don't believe there have been any objectively fascist nations on Earth since the late twentieth century. There are certainly dictatorships, but places like the DRC and North Korea don't claim to be fascist. I believe what @AP246 meant was that Syria was the last bastion of Italian-born, Nazi-bred fascism, not the last dictatorship on Earth.
 
I don't believe there have been any objectively fascist nations on Earth since the late twentieth century. There are certainly dictatorships, but places like the DRC and North Korea don't claim to be fascist. I believe what @AP246 meant was that Syria was the last bastion of Italian-born, Nazi-bred fascism, not the last dictatorship on Earth.

What I meant to ask was, is the ITTL world far more Democratic then OTL?
 
I don't believe there have been any objectively fascist nations on Earth since the late twentieth century. There are certainly dictatorships, but places like the DRC and North Korea don't claim to be fascist. I believe what @AP246 meant was that Syria was the last bastion of Italian-born, Nazi-bred fascism, not the last dictatorship on Earth.

Yes, that's about what I mean

What I meant to ask was, is the ITTL world far more Democratic then OTL?

I think it depends what you mean. In terms of total number of people, there are probably more living in more democratic places, simply because China in TWR is a flawed democracy in the modern day.

At the same time, other regions are probably worse. Europe is probably slightly less democratic, as parts of Africa might be too, especially West Africa and the Sahara region, because of more turmoiled events during decolonisation due to the collapse of the French state and its civil war.
 
I think it depends what you mean. In terms of total number of people, there are probably more living in more democratic places, simply because China in TWR is a flawed democracy in the modern day.

At the same time, other regions are probably worse. Europe is probably slightly less democratic, as parts of Africa might be too, especially West Africa and the Sahara region, because of more turmoiled events during decolonisation due to the collapse of the French state and its civil war.

Obviously. Decades of Nazi plunder isn't something that can easily be fixed.
 
Was one Hafez al-Assad the first President of Alawia by any chance or at least a prominent figure in the early development of said nation or did he throw his lot with the SSNP ITTL?

That's actually a good point I hadn't considered! Perhaps he could be, but at the same time, it's easy to see him getting involved with the SSNP. I guess if he sticks to Arab nationalism he could become its leader, but then again I did make Saddam a Saadeh-inspired fascist. Something to consider I guess.

See this is great, when I post stuff people always come up with interesting questions and ideas that get me thinking too.
 
Top