Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread

Discussion in 'Alternate History Maps and Graphics' started by Beedok, Jun 15, 2014.

  1. marcinL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    For Germany to have no territorial grievances against Poland the latter would have to be already strangled
     
  2. DracoLazarus Ouroborus Cataphractus

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2015
    Location:
    Isola Electris, Empire of the Sky Isles
    Except there could have been no Allied peace where the ratio of strength of Germany to the Allies was higher after the peace than before the war. It would have been the same as granting Germany the victory.
    The minimal terms of an Allied victory would have been Alsace-Lorraine to France, and Germany cannot acquire more land. That means no union with Austria, and no acquisition of the Sudetenland.
    This, essentially.
     
  3. Ivoshafen Just A Man From Gondor - Recovering from SATS

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Location:
    Indiǣna
    I'm not saying the Germans should be given all of the land I mentioned, but I am saying unfairly taking away land that wishes to be German is how you get a xenophobic nationalist in charge. AL should go to France, I'm not arguing that, but you also have to realize you cannot start taking away the rights of sovereign states to do what they please. If Austria wishes to join Germany, that is between Austria and Germany, that is a German issue, if you put a stopper on that, it creates an Us VS Them mindset for the German people. Germans VS Them, Germans VS the Allies. Revanchanism all over again.

    This should not be a peace about containing Germany, this should be a peace about keeping peace. Punishment VS Rehabilitation, you don't want to treat Germany like they are somehow less of a people, less of a fellow European, for simply answering an ally's call in the Great War, but then we get into the old argument of where the blame should lay.

    Hitler is a direct result of how the world handled Germany, Hitler was a direct result of how the German people handled the treaty. A shit show and poor performance on both sides. Let the Germans be Germans, let the Poles be Poles, the French French, and treat the nation with the respect a sovereign state deserves. There is no reason the peace deal has to obliterate Germany, they aren't a ghost coming back time and time again, they are a people that just lost a war they could have won, they damned near reached Paris. Yes, I understand the mindset of attempting to stop Germany from swinging its weight around again, but you can't treat someone like a bully their entire life and not expect it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Treat Germany as an equal, before, after, and during the treaty. Offering them a spot in the LoN, allow Austrian annexation if Austria wishes for it. Don't treat the Germans like the boogymen of Europe or they will become the very monster you see them as, that goes for any nation, people group, or person in general.
     
  4. DracoLazarus Ouroborus Cataphractus

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2015
    Location:
    Isola Electris, Empire of the Sky Isles
    I believe the reparations were mishandled, and so was their integration to the LoN.
    However, the territorial clauses were essentially a minimum.
    Germany breached the Belgian neutrality and seriously mistreated Belgian civilians, case in point Louvain. Germany burned half of France's industrial capacity as it left the lands it occupied.
    Germany is the bully of Europe at the time the treaty is signed.
    A harsher treaty, that contains incentives for Germany to behave, would probably have been better. But then, it runs into the issue of the enforcement of said treaty.
     
  5. Ivoshafen Just A Man From Gondor - Recovering from SATS

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Location:
    Indiǣna
    Germany did that, not the German people. Especially when the nation takes on a democratic form after the war, you can't treat them as if the population of Germany should be punished for the actions of the Kaiser and his military.

    A harsher treaty would have ruined Germany, turned it into a backwater, and may have ended with something worse than we got. If you poke an injured animal and it hisses, the response is not to hit it in hopes that it stops hissing. The issue is not the enforcement, the issues lays in the fact that Germany, nor should any nation, be disenfranchised utterly as a sovereign state.

    You can punish Germany, yes, but not ruin the entire nation to the point of no return, especially after an administration change.

    The Weimar Republic is not to blame for the Kaisrreich's sins, but it should help mend them regardless, but you shouldn't put Germany down like a rabid dog as so many Alt-Versailles suggest. Harsher treatment is not the response, a fairer treatment is. Germany needs to be punished, yes, but not ruined. You need to make a difference between Germany and the German people, the treaty doesn't dictate the lives of the current generation, the treaty dictates if you'll be fighting the next. Treat it as such.

    I will say, you put up a good argument, as you always do, and I know it's something you're passionate about, Draco, but you know me well. You know me as someone that cares a great deal about the world as a whole, I hope you don't take any of this as a personal attack :p

    EDIT: And the line about territorial losses, its not something I'm getting into as I already states I think the Weimar Era borders were a fair response, besides the exclusion of Danzig, I think that it represents a fair medium. A minimum would have been Alsace, a maximum and insane degree would be to the west bank of the Rhine and Oder-Neisse to the east
     
  6. DracoLazarus Ouroborus Cataphractus

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2015
    Location:
    Isola Electris, Empire of the Sky Isles
    The thing being, that the military still represented a significative portion of the German people. One in thirty, forty, maybe.
    It essentially depends on the method of the harshness.
    Temporarily spinning out parts of Germany, to return if they behave, while recognising them as a Great Power still, would probably have worked.
    To be fair, I think the treaty should have had an end date.
    It wasn't suited to a permanent peace. Not while it limited the German army to a ridiculously low level while doing no such thing for the French and Polish.
    I was thinking spinning Baden-Wurtemberg, Bavaria and Rhenania off temporarily - for five to fifteen years, with a referendum whether or not to rejoin Germany.
    And Austria could have had a similar referendum at the end of the 20 years.
    Not something permanent.
     
    merkmuds and Chris S like this.
  7. Jan Olbracht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Location:
    Polska
    No one predicted before 1939 that Hitler is serious about his racial lunacy and would carry on massive genocide in Poland. Poles predicted, that Poland could be occupied for a while by Germans before Western Allies defeat Germany, but it was assumed that such occupation would look like ww1 one. It is hard to blame Poles, that they have not predicted nazi barbarism before ww2. No one did.
     
    marcinL and Crying like this.
  8. Ivoshafen Just A Man From Gondor - Recovering from SATS

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Location:
    Indiǣna
    You can’t split Germany like that after a majority of German history is the saga of them trying to form a unitary nation, if you want Germans to never trust the western powers again, you’d divide them. You can’t treat a nation like a petulant child, you can’t divide up a state like that, territorial integrity is key even for the losing powers. I’m sorry, but I see no way that dividing Germany in such a way would help, I can only see it causing more damage to the German psyche than OTL.

    Germany finally finds itself united, and the very nation they fought to make that happen (from a German perspective) breaks them apart again, you will never see peace in continental Europe with such a policy, I’m sorry, but you won’t. Land isn’t just land, it’s people, it’s families, it’s loved ones and brothers, it’s the integral pieces of Deutschland. You can’t just remove core land from a nation like that. I’m sorry. It would be like England removing Normandy, Occitania, and Picardy from France after Napoleon.

    We’ve gotten this thread painfully off topic, if you’d like to resume this in PMs, feel free.
     
  9. Kohlticus Euraleth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Location:
    New York City
    Yeah, but there's a reason Danzig wasn't given to Poland wholesale.
     
  10. marcinL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Yeah, Lloyd George. This was the guy who said "giving Poland Silesian industry is like giving monkey a watch"
     
  11. Suvareshkin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2014
    Germanophobia galore, as if Germany is a rapacious beast intent on domination.
     
    Zagan and Thon Taddeo like this.
  12. Zurirach Adankar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Instead of discussing which nation should have controlled the Free City of Danzig after 1918 whe should discussing how to abandon nationalism. Territorial disputes are a good example of the dangers and the stupidity of it. (I mean there are always minorities, and "clean" borders are impossible unless you enact horrible policies since there are always minorities and villages with a minority majority. Just abandon the idea that a "nation" needs a leading ethnicity.
     
    DrWalpurgis likes this.
  13. Crazy Boris Cool Dood

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2017
    Location:
    Holy Albertan Empire
    Remember when this thread was about maps

    Let's go back to that

    here's an Absaroka
    [​IMG]
     
    SnivyLink, FossilDS, Swede and 28 others like this.
  14. Umbric Man Umbric Manned

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Location:
    Southern Hella-ware
    I hope Buffalo and Bison have a Springfield/Shelbyville-esque rivalry with one another.
     
  15. Jan Olbracht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Location:
    Polska
    Yes, like our history shows, after giving up territory claimed by Germany (Sudetenland) Czechs were left in peace.
    Oh, wait a moment...
     
    Don Quijote, merkmuds and Chris S like this.
  16. DrWalpurgis ha ha ha OH WELL

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2018
    Location:
    Sussex by the sea
    Well said, Crazy Boris. Well said.

    My main question is who the heck would live in this new state; from what I understand, Wyoming and the Dakotas aren't exactly bustling already.
     
    Gokbay and AUGGP like this.
  17. Iserlohn Amateur Cartographer

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Location:
    County of Mark
    A quick look at the major cities in the area reveals a population of around... 130,000, but since there's also a lot of towns and villages in there... I'd guesstimate 200,000 souls at most in 2018, which would make it the least populated state in the Union by far. And based on what I did in terms of research on it, they were 1) banking on that sweet tourism money coming in from Mount Rushmore and Yellowstone, and 2) they hoped that they could present a united front against FDR's New Deal, which the people in those remote areas of their states were against, but their relative isolation and disunity meant that they didn't have the ability to "resist" that policy.

    So the low population is kinda by design: all three areas are rural backwaters located in already rural backwaters.

    Also here's something interesting I found on my hard drive.

    [​IMG]

    Some proposed borders of Tibet. I can't remember where I found it, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't in this thread. Also while the map labels this as being from the Simla Conference, it's actually from the Simla Accord of 1914.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2018
  18. Nathan Bernacki Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    [​IMG]


    From 1883 to 1901, New Zealand was a member of the Federal Council of Australasia and the way seemed clear for it to become a state of Australia. However, in 1901, New Zealand refused to become a state of Australia in response to Australia's discriminatory policies against the Aborigines. New Zealand had a positive relationship with the Maoris and did not want that progress erased by membership in a country which treated it's non-white inhabitants as inferior to whites.

    Australia was so desperate for New Zealand to become a state that in 1902, the government gave Maoris right to vote, whereas Australia's actual natives, the Aborigines, did not get suffrage until 1967.
     
  19. Chris S Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    I remember that book. I can't remember the name of that book. But I do remember that book. Unfortunately I don't have it. From what I can recall it's a very good and detailed book on Tibetan history.

    EDIT: A google search suggests it came from this book from 1988: "Himalayan triangle: a historical survey of British India's relations with Tibet, Sikkim and Bhutan 1765-1950" but I seem to recall it from another book that was written in the late 1990s or early 2000s.
     
  20. marcinL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Right, Poland would do great without Greater Poland, Upper Silesia, Pomerania and those bits and pieces of Congress Poland Germany wanted for themselves. Industry, developed agriculture, sea access and not being completely devastated by war is so overrated.
     
    DrWalpurgis and merkmuds like this.