On the topic of Nazi victory maps…

Discussion in 'Alternate History Books and Media' started by Morgan Hauser, Jan 26, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DrakonFin Operator Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Location:
    The Finnish Military-Historical Complex
    In 1940, during the Winter War when Göring proposed to Finland making peace with "any terms" that would preserve the army to fight another day, promising support in an eventual revenge against the USSR, he asked the Finns what kind of borders they would want. When the Finns indicated Kola as well as Eastern Karelia as a areas of "old Finnish settlement", Göring said that the question of Kola is dependent on "economic discussions".

    This, I think, is the key. To Germany Kola is merely an economic point, whereas Finland considers the area as a part of a viable Greater Finland also in an ideological sense. That is not to say Finland would figtht tooth and nail for the area, but it means that the Finnish government is ready to go to some lenghts to receive the peninsula.

    Economically, Germany can make Finland to grand far-reaching concessions in the area. In mining, specifically. German industry in the north does not require German troops there. Rather to the contrary, if the Finns hold the area, they free up German occupation forces for potentially more restless areas of the former USSR. The resources extracted from the peninsula will, nevertheless, move towards Central Europe through the Finnish rail network, so even in terms of smooth logistics a Reich enclave in the north would rather make things more complicated.

    Because of these points, I have thought Kola would be politically and militarily Finnish, but economically factually a German colony. I see it as the most logical outcome.

    But then again, there is not always logic where there are Nazis...:rolleyes:
     
  2. Max Sinister Retired Myriad Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Location:
    The Chaos TL
    Maybe they name the new Gaue simply after their capital cities. In the case of the Netherlands: Better don't remind people that their country had a history before the nazi conquest. :rolleyes:
     
  3. WeissRaben Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Location:
    Duchy of Milan
    ...mh, I wouldn't worry about the Italian politicians, though. If I were Germany, I'd worry about Italy itself. Fascist rule would last VERY little, and...weell...I don't know. I can see large scale revolts in Milan, Naples ( 8D ), Rome and just about every big city; would they be able to overthrow Mussolini, well, France could as well give it a shot. Take the USA into account, and Russia and Britain if the nazi government ends up being quite heavy, and...well. The Third Reich isn't gonna last one thousand years.
     
  4. Morgan Hauser Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Location:
    Netherlands
    I’m not trying to exaggerate Italy’s military ineptitude now, but probably nobody would disagree with me that they were more of a burden than a help to the German war effort. First by dragging them into a unnecessary conflict in the Mediterranean and North Africa, and then forcing the Wehrmacht to intervene militarily in the Balkans after the botched attack on Greece (although they did provide Germany with a viable route to the Middle East, and the Yugoslavian coup was a separate event, respectively).

    I’ve long been of the opinion that Germany was the only “true” Axis power from beginning to end. Not to overstate its military or economic might, but it did form the lynchpin of the entire alliance (and therefore became the target of the Allies’ “Europe first” strategy). Countries like Italy and Japan would likely have been much less territorially aggressive if not for Germany to back them up against much more powerful neighbours (Japan against the US especially).

    But okay, I do have to admit that Italy most likely wouldn't be forced to give up all of its pretensions of empire, at least under Hitler. That would mean then that the historical formation of the Operational Zones in Tyrol and the Adriatic Littoral were just a result of the 1943 “betrayal” of Italy.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2010
  5. Morgan Hauser Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Oh trust me, nobody is disputing that. Megalomania certainly wasn’t in short supply either, especially with Hitler and Himmler. The whole system of Nazism is self-destructive down to its very core, so the only real way to turn Germany into a superpower is to change its fundamental nature. And the movement is so inextricably linked to that of its leader that you might as well just call it Hitlerism instead. It’s indeed hard to imagine a Nazi Germany without him.

    Come to think of it, it might be a neat idea of I included a small city map of Germania as well.
     
  6. Morgan Hauser Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Where does it say that? According to what I'm reading it was named after the local river "Moskva" that flows through it.

    So that’s where “Theodorichshafen” came from. And I thought it was derived from the ancient Ostrogothic king. ;)

    I’d say those actions (Rowno instead of Kiev, Krakow instead of Warsaw) were done more for security reasons, rather than just as intentional contempt for the old institutions.

    Don't really see that happening as long as the RKs aren't yet dissolved and directly incorporated into Germany as new reichsgaue. But then again, the respective Reichskommissars who made their headquarters in their RK's capitals (all of whom were also Gauleiters in Germany itself) did answer directly to Hitler, instead of through Rosenfeld's official ministry for the occupied territories, so there is a precedent for it.
     
  7. Morgan Hauser Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Location:
    Netherlands
    I've heard references for that to either German Ocean or German Sea in the times of Imperial Germany, but didn't know the Nazis also used it. "German" would of course be swapped for "Germanic" with the establishment of the new empire. The Baltic Sea/Ostsee might also have been renamed to something like "inner sea", since it would be surrounded by the Reich on practically all sides (kinda like the Roman use of the term Mare Nostrum).

    Thanks.
     
  8. Morgan Hauser Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Location:
    Netherlands
    I would foresee some sort of societal collapse of Nazi Germany several decades up to half a century down the line. Nazism isn't build to sustain itself, nor to last. The USA would also quickly turn into Germany's mortal enemy as soon as it becomes public knowledge just what the Nazi government is doing to about 130 million people in its conquered eastern territories.

    If Germany due to a monumental amount of good luck were somehow able to achieve the sort of victory that is displayed on my map however it would be the absolute death of Soviet communism, followed pretty soon by that of Russia as a nation as well. A lot of people don't seem to realise just how much of an amputation the loss of all of its European posessions would be to Russia. It is somewhat akin to the annexation followed by the ethnic cleansing of all of France's home soil save for Brittany and Corsica, and then expecting it to still survive as a state.

    By the way, two facts that have gone unmentioned and are un-depicted on the map:
    (1) Some countries outside of all the Reich territories are actually under permanent military occupation, namely France (the “old rival”), Serbia (to keep the rest of the Balkan powers in line), and Greece (HQ of the Reich Mediterranean Fleet).
    (2) With countries like Turkey, Spain, and France, it might seem like they are independent, but if you note in the legend they are actually all part of the “Greater European Economic Community”. Initially I tried to display all countries in some shade of the grey German client state colour, but it just ended up making the map look incredibly dull. So instead they’re nominally independent, but with Germany practically controlling them through this client state system. For instance, if you were to take a look at this map, you wouldn’t think the Germans are actually occupying most of them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2010
  9. Morgan Hauser Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Well, Hitler did say he intended to unite all the Aryan peoples.:D.

    But seriously - I did notice that as well and I think it’s just an error. This particular map looks slightly incomplete, as a number of other discrepancies can also be spotted, like Transnistria being called Moldau, the western boundary of Ostland, the missing state names and borders here and there, etc.

    Ah, okay. I do know that Switzerland would be swallowed up into Germany if Hitler had his way, but often wondered if that was supposed to be in full, or if it just meant the German-speaking areas. I also heard some reference to Hitler wanting to create a "Greater Switzerland" by adding French territory to it.

    I think I’ve heard someone mention that it was to be located in that area, but that it couldn’t never be established in wartime because that was Vichy’s resort. But you’re right - I will need some more definite confirmation than that to settle the issue. The vague geographical boundaries of “Burgundy” just confuse the issue, however.

    I think that has less to do with population density than the eastern ones consisting almost entirely out of annexed territories, which would be better served if placed under a single governmental authority. The eventual size of East Prussia, which was nearly as large as the entire GG, is especially notable.

    Oh by the way, in 1942 they renamed the “Reichsgaue der Ostmark” region to the “Donau- und Alpenreichsgaue des Grossdeutschen Reiches” (as contrasted with the Altreich).

    Good point. I'll go back and apply Rauter's plan to put the future Reichsgaue in the Netherlands under SS-veterans from the Eastern front as you pointed out in your PM.

    Doubt it. They'd just reclaim it as a symbol of "Aryan Germanic pride".
     
  10. Zajir ƶɑĵıř

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Location:
    Romania
    With regards to Norway, Hitler promised Quisling that Norway would become independent after the war, in fact he was the only collaborationnist leader to get that promise.

    What happened, did Hitler change his mind or what?
     
  11. varyar Who?

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2007
    Right, follow the link to the river's entry. Bear is one of the possible meanings, and Bear City sounds better than Dark City or Angled City.

    I vaguely recall reading (probably in Hitler's War Aims, which is full of useful information for Nazi Victory threads, btw) that Rosenberg or Koch picked Rowno basically out of FU, Ukraine! sentiment (and to be closer to Berlin for political and personal reasons). Could be a mis-recollection, though.
     
  12. Chris S Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Hitler made lots of promises. The only ones that mattered were the ones he made to himself.
     
  13. Communist Wizard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Here is the topographic map of Europe under Nazi rule. I based the borders on the OP, but sadly the projection is very distorted.
    I might add names, cities, etc. later.
    SVG file here:
    View attachment EuropeTopographyNazi.svg
     
  14. Communist Wizard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    In PNG...
    [​IMG]
    NOTE: Far smaller than the SVG map.
     
  15. PaulGonzalez Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010


    Where are the following Reichskommissariats?

    ReichsKommissariat Ural
    ReichsKommissariat Ost-Nordland
    Reichskommissariat Ost-Sibirien

    I found these planned Nazi zones here.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskommissariat

    Also, can someone make a map of what a Nazi dominated WORLD would look like? I've always been fascinated with the far out.:eek:
     
  16. PaulGonzalez Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Sorry, one more thing.....................

    This plan for making the Yenisei River as the dividing line between the Third Reich and Japan.....which did Hitler want more:the Urals being the boundary or something like the Yenisei River, which reaches ever deeper into Asia?
     
  17. Kate The Great Wonder Woman in Waiting

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Location:
    On the move
    Casablanca and Rick's.

    In this ATL was it Reagan or Bogart?
     
  18. Konrad13 Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    One small thing: You have Czechia (or Bohemia, or whatever this Nazi dominated world calls that province) controlling most of the western and northern Sudetenland. Now, barring massive "inferior peoples relocation" of the Czechs in said province, I doubt they would hold the Sudetenland and it would either be it's own province or be divided up amongst the several provinces that border it.
     
  19. Strategos' Risk Oriental Orientalist

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Homeline
    TIME Magazine is frequently an excellent source. Look at that freakin date.

     
    Max Sinister likes this.
  20. Strategos' Risk Oriental Orientalist

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Homeline
    Umm, isn't the above article pretty important for AH purposes, considering how it's an actual semi-historical (not sure how credible these claims or how useful) look into the dystopian plans of the Reich?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.