On the topic of Nazi victory maps…
- Thread starter Morgan Hauser
- Start date
- Status
Curious! I'd love to know where it came from originally. Ah well...
(Tangential to your "They wouldn't use the name Russia" - to which I agree - a while ago I beat my brain to a pulp trying to come up with suitably Germanic names for the various divisions of RK Moskau and Ukraine, for that far-off ASB day when they'd change from RK districts to Reichsgaue. After the 10th or so clumsy translation based on Wikipedia articles, I gave up, but someone more familiar with Russian & Ukrainian and German should have a go at it one day, IMO.
Here's the list, for everyone to point and laugh at:
Weißmeer/Arkhangelsk oblast (Erzengelstadt/Arkhangelsk)
Westwald/Komi Republic (Syssolaburg/Syktyvkar)
Tannen/Vologda oblast (Greiserstadt/Vologda)
Kostroma/Ivanovo, Kostroma and Yaroslavl oblasts (Romberg/Yaroslavl)
Waldaihöhen/Tver oblast (Kniwastadt/Tver)
Bären/Kaluga and Moscow oblasts (Bärenstadt/Moscow)
Königlich/Vladimir and Ryazan oblasts (Königlichstadt/Vladimir)
Nordsteppe/Lipetsk, Oryol and Tula oblasts (Neu-Kulm/Tula)
Schwarzerde/Kursk, Belgorod and Voronzeh oblasts (Balckstadt/Voronezh)
Zna/Tambov Oblast (Znaburg/Tambov)
Or/Baskhortosan republic and Orenburg oblast (Orenburg)
Bergwald/Perm krai (Klemmburg/Perm)
Siwa/Kirov oblast and Udmurtia (Hilinburg/Kirov)
Ostwolga/Chuvashia, Mari El and Tatarstan (Tschuwaschenburg/Cheboksary)
Mordrovia and Nizhny Novgorod oblast (Jochmannstadt/Nizhny Novgorod)
Mittelsteppe/Penza, Samara, Saratov and Ulyanovsk oblasts (Fehrstadt/Ulyanovsk) )
Last edited:
Since the territorial control of the region was supposed to be with the RSHA, I suppose the idea most likely came from either Heydrich, Himmler, or even Mueller. It was Himmler and the SS who drew up the colonization plans for Eastern Europe in Generalplan Ost, after all.
"Ferry city"? "Bear city"? Nice…
One thing you have to love about the Nazis is their complete lack of imagination in renaming cities and regions. The number of times the terms “–stadt” (city) “–burg” (castle) and “–land” (exactly what it says on the tin) pop up is just ridiculous (although to be fair, they are just normal and widespread terms used in German-speaking countries).
The general trend used for renaming things by the Nazis were apparently either:
- after some (historically) notable German (or otherwise “Aryan”) person or name;
- an ancient Germanic tribe, whether real or imagined (Goths, Vandals, Gorals)
- or some local geographical feature (mountains, rivers, forests, etc.)
I actually think the Netherlands would probably have been renamed as well, probably after the ancient Batavian tribe that lived there. So:
Netherlands/Nederland/Niederlande = Batavenland
Amsterdam = Bataverien
There was also a proposition that Moscow should be burned down to the ground sometime in the future, or even turned into a lake. What in the hell were they supposed to administer the RK Moskau from then? I suppose they could have just stamped a new city out of the ground (what with the abundance of ample slave labour), but it is pretty hard to govern something from a pile of rubble.
So you are only referring to the cities in the annexed eastern territories then? You have to realise that many of there are barely inhabited at this point, with most of the population either having been killed, deliberately starved to death, or deported to either the countryside or east of the Ural mountains. Not many of the names sound too particularly non-Germanic now, I think - but I might have a go at it with the list of possible city names Varyar drew up. See the response in my above post as well.
And you have to admit that Bialystok sounds way too Slavic for a Nazi colonization authority. The only reason it wasn’t immediately renamed upon its historical conquest to begin with is probably because of the area not “officially” having been incorporated into the Reich.
Really? Could you provide some references to them, so I can correct that mistake?
No, I’d say Denmark is yet another, very different situation. Because of their early surrender and a number of other reasons the Danes were mainly allowed to govern themselves by the Germans (a “model protectorate” as the Nazis called it). The Reich was represented by a "reichbevoellmachtiger" in Denmark, basically a diplomatic envoy instructed to coordinate the occupation policies with the local Danish authorities. The whole situation in general is annoying complex, as people might have noted by now. The different forms of control installed in the countries conquered by the Germans or made subservient/allied to the them varied wildly, and were often rather vaguely defined.
Most of them only show Ostland itself, but are you referring to the last one, which shows Ukraine in its Soviet- and modern-era borders? I think they were used simply for statistical, rather than administrative purposes.
If you were wondering by the way, I got the district/generalkommissariat borders from this map displayed in a book of mine, which I think was drawn by Rosenberg.
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/1551/ccf2101201000000.jpg
Basically, yeah. Any map that can be made is merely an approximation in the end, some closer than others. It all depends on how you define terms such as “victory” (hell, even "Nazi" itself), how total it was, how and under what circumstances this “victory” was achieved, and what persons and factions would be in power after the resolution of conflict. In fact, about the only way to get an absolutely correct map is if you were to actually change history and visit this grand Nazi future that so many AH writers are so fascinated by. I’ve therefore tried to adhere as closely as possible to the post-war plans for the “New Order”. Whether these were actually realistically possible is another debate altogether, I think.
And the Italians under Mussolini definately are self-deluded enough to think themselves important enough to be able to challenge the Germans. I do wonder what their attitude would be however if the German population (and therefore their military and economic might) just quadrupled right under their feet all of a sudden.
The reason I’m convinced a conflict between Germany and Italy would be inevitable down the line is because of their very differing viewpoints on what the post-war order should look like. Italy perceived this in terms of the division of Europe into a German and Italian sphere of influence, with Italy in total control over the Mediterranean basin (the Roman Mare Nostrum). The Germans on the other hand wanted to incorporate all areas of Europe that were not to be simply annexed into the new Reich into a system of subservient client states of the Reich. With Germany obviously being the far stronger power (especially with their absorption of Eastern Europe) the advantages initially gained from the Italo-German alliance would quickly wane, and the Italians would eventually do something that the new hegenom would NOT tolerate. There is a limit as to what can be tolerated by the Germans, even with Hitler.
I think you made a mistake in what you just described there (or maybe I'm just imaging it differently). The Rhine actually defines the Swiss-German border in most places. Did you mean the language areas instead?
There were only two countries that the Nazis tolerated giving any territorial promises to about the conquered Soviet territories (that was their Lebensraum after all, so Hitler didn't feel like sharing it with anyone): Romania and Finland. Both had major grievances with the Soviets after being forced to give up part of their own countries (and the Romanians needed to be compensated for the loss of North Transylvania to Hungary in the Second Vienna Award), and would therefore be anxious to side with the Germans. The Finns were extremely vital to the German war effort because of their contribution to the conflict with the Soviet Union, so the Germans generally did whatever they could to keep them in the fight. I've heard the promises referred to by someone as including Karelia, the Kola peninsula, Murmansk, some land east of Lake Onega and "even more" (whatever that means). But as Frige just stated, the Germans seem to have wanted the Kola peninsula for themselves, so I'm waiting for confirmation on that.
No, that was apparently just supposed to be taken from France as even further revenge after the earlier cession of the French Netherlands and Alsace-Lorraine. “The borders with France will be those of the Holy Roman Empire.” I believe Hitler’s exact words were. The SS State of Burgundy was a different idea altogether, thought up entirely by Himmler (and later approved by his master, at least officially). The borders are those of the old Frankish kingdom of Burgundy, by the way.
That would seem to be the correct conclusion. It was apparently in 1941 when Hitler definitively decided that the GG was to become “as German as the Rhineland” and all references to the Poles as a people and a nation were subsequently dropped.
Last edited:
"Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
It's just a reference to Casablanca, yeah.
The Germans already have a practically unlimited supply of oil flowing from the Caspian Sea, so there isn't really any need. Vassalizing Saudi Arabia would have angered the Americans too much (as both of these events combined gives Germany about 90% of the world's oil supplies). Still, the British are tasked to "keep the peace" in the Middle East and other parts of Asia and Africa.
You might have heard that entity jokingly referred to here occasionally as "the inevitable SS-State of Burgundy" (underline the "inevitable").Also I'm intrigued by the Staat-Burgund. What is that? And is that a little SS I see on it
It stems from a proposition Heinrich Himmler made to Hitler that the old Frankish kingdom of "Burgundy" (there have been many entities throughout history that used or still use this name, with wildly varying borders) should be resurrected as a new state under his personal authority. It was imagined to be a new model state totally controlled by the SS, basically a huge SS boarding school. Hitler seems to have agreed to this idea with Himmler, at least officially.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Burgundy
and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundy
Last edited:
"Ferry city"? "Bear city"? Nice…
Wikipedia says the name Moscow is based on the word bear, and they'd never lie!
One thing you have to love about the Nazis is their complete lack of imagination in renaming cities and regions. The number of times the terms “–stadt” (city) “–burg” (castle) and “–land” (exactly what it says on the tin) pop up is just ridiculous (although to be fair, they are just normal and widespread terms used in German-speaking countries).
The general trend used for renaming things by the Nazis were apparently either:
- after some (historically) notable German (or otherwise “Aryan”) person or name;
- an ancient Germanic tribe, whether real or imagined (Goths, Vandals, Gorals)
- or some local geographical feature (mountains, rivers, forests, etc.)[/quote]
There's only so many options, though. I can imagine some bureaucrat in the late 1940s of a Nazis Win TL staring at a map of European Russia and randomly renaming villages after his neighbors.
I can see that, along the lines of getting rid of even the name Austria in the Austrian gaue. All one big happy Aryan family now!
Holland and, I dunno, West Frisia might work, too, or in addition to that. Hitler would probably split the country up to erode the self of national consciousness some more.
Well, there is precedent for the Nazis ignoring the natural center of government - look at where the RK Ukraine was governed from. You might see Tula or something made into the capital of RK Moskau.
Alternatively, heavy decentralization with the districts of RK Moskau answering directly to Berlin and the city of Moscow reduced to a provincial capital.
In regards to Italy do recall that unlike many other German allies it sent a great deal of manpower and support to Germany. Italian fought from Africa to the Balkans to Russia. Yes they have this current image of almost romantic bumbling key stone cops, but they had a navy, airforce, industry, and its government was in full support of the Axis.
So post-Hitler I can see little areas in the Balkans becoming more German controlled, but even than I do not see Germany cutting out big chunks of Italy.
Recall Hitler spent a lot of resources to support Italy, as well as conduction a very difficult operation to free Mussolini.
So post-Hitler I can see little areas in the Balkans becoming more German controlled, but even than I do not see Germany cutting out big chunks of Italy.
Recall Hitler spent a lot of resources to support Italy, as well as conduction a very difficult operation to free Mussolini.
Officially, yeah. The SS resorted to just overruling the French authorities in all matters of state, so Paris eventually gave up on trying to govern the region themselves, making it independant in practice if not on paper.That SS Burgundy thing is fascinating. It really is inevitable
However I don't understand how it's marked on the map. Is it just an autonomous part of France? I would have thought it would be fully independent (or part of the German alliance, rather).
Last edited:
What would the SS ...do in Burgundy, though? That they couldn't do anywhere else, anyways.
You would probably have to ask Himmler that, not me.
With the abundance of power the SS already had OTL (leading to them being referred to by some as a “state within a state”) I’d say he just wanted to officially be given his own country to control as he saw fit.
"Sorry, but Himmler is currently unavailable. Please leave a message after the FBI wiretaps your phone."
Anyways, clearly proof that the Nazis were a bunch of weirdos. And to think they were anywhere close to becoming a superpower...
I might work on one of these myself. I'll make it more fancy, might include a topographical map...
I know it wasn't totally like Denmark, but I was using the comparison of an occupied area that wasn't turned into a republic.
The last one showed that? No, the last one was a panel of 4 maps and the last map (the one in the lower right corner) showed Ukraine in the pre-war 1941 borders and also showed the Reichskommissariat districts. See:
http://libx.bsu.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/ostlndAtls&CISOPTR=172&CISOBOX=1&REC=18
I think this should link to the zoomed in area: http://libx.bsu.edu/cdm4/item_viewe...TEXT=&DMTHUMB=0&REC=18&DMROTATE=0&x=459&y=513
Note G.B. Schitomir and G.B. Tschernigow with a little, tiny bit of G.B. Kiew between the two.
Actually that map does resemble the one you linked us to.
Interesting. Thanks for the link.
What is most interesting is the border of Armenia and Azerbaijan - either it was an error or a part he didn't pay much attention to...or....Rosenberg had some plans for Iran!!
(note where the border with Iran should be, but isn't).
Well, I did see the map of the plan on tele, so it should be taken with a bit of salt...but what I did see was the division line starting at the point where the Rhine meets the border between Switzerland and Liechtenstein and then following the Rhine along the route of the Vorderrhein and from there continuing in a line (along the same angle) until it hit the Swiss border (I think it was the border with France, but it may have been the border with Italy).
What's your source for Himmler's intended SS-Burgundy having the borders of the old Frankish kingdom of Burgundy?
Because having "the borders with France...be those of the Holy Roman Empire" and having the SS-Burgundy in that area is not strictly incompatible since during the time of the HRE, the House of Burgundy (through the County of Burgundy and Duchy of Burgundy and other Burgundian held areas) ruled over pretty much that same area. The only map I've ever seen online (although admittedly it could very well be incorrect or have confused the issue) also shows SS-Burgundy in that area.
Hmm...that brings me to another point. Why would the Netherlands have been incorporated whole as a Reichsgau? The only other place they did that with was Austria (as Ostmark) and even that was temporary as Ostmark was divided into further Reichsgaue along the lines of the Austrian Lander (with adjustments). I think they did that partly to discourage any Austrian identity and partly for administrative purposes. Also the Nazis seemed to enjoy destroying larger entities (so Russia was to be destroyed and closer to home the divided up Bavaria, Austria and Prussia into a number of gaue). The gaue also seem to decrease in size along the Rhineland and Ruhr and it seemed to me that this was due to the population density (so areas with larger populations and which are more densely populated would end up with more gaue).
As you pointed out they seemed to like to use historical tribes, figures and entities as well as geographical features to name the gaue, so maybe they would make Limburg a gau - it would fit with the naming pattern and Limburg was part of the German confederation as part of the Netherlands (but then Luxembourg was also a member and the Nazis steamrolled it entirely and absorbed into Mosselland so who knows?).
Batavia/Batavenland sounds like a probable name, provided that Hitler and his cronies were turned off by the fact that the French had set up a similar entity (the Batavian Republic).
They might well divide it into a number of gaue like Limburg, Südholland und Batavenland (maybe in Gelderland, Utrecht and South Holland), Holland (effectively North Holland), Maas (north Brabant), Ijssel-Ems (or whatever the German would be for "Ijssel" - maybe "Aasel"? "Aasal"?) for Overijssel, Groningen, Drenthe and Friesland (unless the Frisians being a Germanic tribe are paid tribute to with the continuation of a "Friesland"). They did have a "Weser-Ems" across the border in Germany.
Thanks, but I thought it would have been along the lines of the wiki's etymology with Germanic *auja "river, water" and *sala "dirty" (cf. OE ēa and Du zaluw) and the IJ (apparently derived from auja) being the equivalent of "Aa" in a river like "Aabach".
Nice, but weren't the north sea called Germanic Ocean by the Nazis or was that just propaganda?
BTW Very nice development of my map, I was thinking of doing something similar myself but decided not to, would be nice to add the autobahns in the east to this, once again really nice!
BTW Very nice development of my map, I was thinking of doing something similar myself but decided not to, would be nice to add the autobahns in the east to this, once again really nice!
Last edited:
- Status