Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread

Nyegosh

Nyegosh

Aghasverov said:
Always knew that my Severnaya Amerika Oblast could use some railroads :)
Click to expand...
You know, an Alaska that stays Russian (perhaps due to more Russians, meaning others lose interest because they don't want the Russians) might result in Russia damming the entire Bering strait. No more Oyashio current! No more ludicrous North Pacific fish supply! Basically the entire east coast of the Pacific becomes nice, warm and pleasant. And ice-free year round. If USSR - basically inevitable. If tsarist Russia - probably even more inevitable, I wouldn't be surprised if it went even further into technocracy than OTL
 
Aghasverov

Aghasverov

Nyegosh said:
You know, an Alaska that stays Russian (perhaps due to more Russians, meaning others lose interest because they don't want the Russians) might result in Russia damming the entire Bering strait. No more Oyashio current! No more ludicrous North Pacific fish supply! Basically the entire east coast of the Pacific becomes nice, warm and pleasant. And ice-free year round. If USSR - basically inevitable. If tsarist Russia - probably even more inevitable, I wouldn't be surprised if it went even further into technocracy than OTL
Click to expand...
That's... going a bit further than I was thinking. :)
I can only imagine the unfortunate, unintended consequences which could arise from such a massive (and ill-advised :p) feat of engineering :p
 
Nyegosh

Nyegosh

Aghasverov said:
That's... going a bit further than I was thinking. :)
I can only imagine the unfortunate, unintended consequences which could arise from such a massive (and ill-advised :p) feat of engineering :p
Click to expand...
The main one would be a large change in ocean temperatures in the Aleutian sea area. British Columbia and Alaska now gets a climate not too dissimilar from Europe at the same latitudes, but at the cost of the fishing stock and massive change in the environment. I do think in the long run it would make the region more fitting for agriculture and larger populations
 

Pax_Nihil

Or, as with most human attempts to subvert nature, it has really bad consequences and the environmental impact study couldn't have even hoped to be correct and a lot of people die :p
 

Chris S

Crazy Boris said:
I don’t have a map for this, but a few days ago found out that there were originally going to be just three occupation zones in Germany, France would be excluded. Charles de Gaulle was just really persistent in demanding that France get one, apparently Stalin said something to FDR and Churchill along the lines of “just give him one so he’ll shut up”

Rhineland-Palatinate was originally going to be in the British Zone, and the parts of Baden-Württemberg France for would have been under American occupation. I’m not certain about Saarland given the special situation it was in after the war, but had the Saar protectorate not been made, I’m guessing it would have been British too.

And on that topic, not a proposal, but something of note, sizable parts of the British and French zones were to be placed under occupation by Belgium, Poland, Luxembourg, and Denmark to assist the occupation forces there, but weren’t given separate zones themselves, but it’s interesting to think about if they were (or for a funny scenario, combine these two ideas, imagine how furious De Gaulle would be if Luxembourg was given a full-on occupation zone and France wasn’t)
Click to expand...

Yes, Churchill had the original 3 occupation zones mapped out in his history of the Second World War and I did a map series on it in this thread. The basic outline of the zones was agreed upon from 1943 (the Soviets and the British proposed nearly identical zonal boundaries and zones (British in the northwest, Soviets in the east, Americans in the south); the Americans under FDR had wildly divergent ideas (Americans in the north, British in the south and Soviets in a east in a smalller zone) but these were very unlikely to have ever been implemented, much less implementable, because it would have required at the very least switching around the landing zones of the British and American forces in Normandy so that it would be the British landing on the western beaches and then swinging around east to end up in central and southern Germany and for the Americans to land on the eastern beaches and thus swing around east to end up in northern Germany; not to mention requiring Eisenhower to have known beforehand that the Germans wouldn't make a stand on the Seine and fallen back thereby explicitly planning the logistics around a faster thrust into Germany and also somehow making the western Allies not worry about the National Redoubt idea for the Nazis in the Alps despite the fact that everything up to that point would make worried about it since 1944 represents the second time in exactly 30 years that they needed to be shooting Germans in a war costing millions of lives and in treasure). There was still disagreement over who would occupy the northwestern zone and who would occupy the southern zone (as the Americans under FDR wanted to occupy the NW since it would enable a speedy withdrawal from Germany via the ports in due course if he wanted) but I think that was finally settled at the Quebec Conference of 1944.

It's extremely unlikely though that Luxembourg would be given an occupation zone without France though. I actually thought about the scenario some time back and concluded that in the event that France wasn't given a full occupation zone it likely would have been given an occupation sector within the American zone (or the British zone or maybe even both as eventually happened with the Belgians) that would roughly parallel the areas they were given in OTL as full on zones. Given that the French armies were arrayed in the south with the American armies, the most likely outcome would be a French sector in the American zone that would be basically the southern half of OTL's French occupation zone.
 
Last edited:

arps123_woo

Ecuador's plan to destroy Peru

In 1840, the president of Ecuador, Juan José Flores, proposed to the Chilean goverment to attack Peru. Ecuador would annex the territories it claimed plus some aditional ones and Peru would be divided in two republics. Later, in 1841, Peru and Bolvia had a war and Flores though Bolivia would accept the proposition too, annexing the territories of Arica and Tarapaca while ceding Atacama to Chile. In the end, Chile rejected this offer and Bolivia and Peru finished their war.

Source:
- Historia de la República del Perú. Jorge Basadre Grohmann
- Historia diplomática de la independencia de Chile, Ricardo Montaner Bello

Sin título.png
 
thedifference

thedifference

arps123_woo said:
Ecuador's plan to destroy Peru

In 1840, the president of Ecuador, Juan José Flores, proposed to the Chilean goverment to attack Peru. Ecuador would annex the territories it claimed plus some aditional ones and Peru would be divided in two republics. Later, in 1841, Peru and Bolvia had a war and Flores though Bolivia would accept the proposition too, annexing the territories of Arica and Tarapaca while ceding Atacama to Chile. In the end, Chile rejected this offer and Bolivia and Peru finished their war.

Source:
- Historia de la República del Perú. Jorge Basadre Grohmann
- Historia diplomática de la independencia de Chile, Ricardo Montaner Bello

View attachment 815472
Click to expand...
I assume that the red is what would be left of Peru, but what is the brown?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top