So, Musso's plans for the Middle East are "mine, mine, MINE!"
Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread
- Thread starter Beedok
- Start date
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 OTLAlways knew that my Severnaya Amerika Oblast could use some railroads
Crazy Boris
Banned
That wasn’t part of the plan, it was already there
Saudi Arabian–Iraqi neutral zone - Wikipedia
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
) feat of engineering 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 populationsThat'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
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:
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
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
Seven different proposals for Texas and New Mexico, 1849-1850:
No lol, it's from Texas A&M, under "J. Michael Harter Map Collection: The Historical Geography of the Llano Estacado", Sections I4-I10
I assume that the red is what would be left of Peru, but what is the brown?
North and South Peru, presumably.
In the Peru-Bolivia Confederation the member states were Bolivia, South Peru and North Peru, instead of an united Peru.
Last edited:
When everyone joked and memed about Ohio, they didn't pay attention to Idaho:
If I'm not mistaken, this has also at one point been proposed for eastern Washington.
There is huge similarity with Totentanzs maps, but also some difference, at least unified (?) Levant/Palestina, I think?
This is a common theme in his maps and he highlights these differences - Axis plans were inconsistent, changed as the course of the war went on, and were very often contradictory.
As examples: Fascist Italy considered turning Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria into four separate Italian protectorates, with virtually the same borders they have today, but Nazi Germany made vague claims about establishing an Arab Union uniting the entire Levant instead, Turkey apparently requested that they should be allowed to annex northern Iraq and Syria (for their Misak-ı Millî project) if they joined the Axis, but of course the Iraqis and Syrians would not have tolerated this and cause them to turn against the Axis, Italy was confused if whenever Palestine and Jordan should be ruled by the King of Italy as a dynastic union, or if they should have a puppet Arab monarchy.
I also recall reading on Totentanz0's beautifully confusing Bible of sources that Fascist Italy once thought of putting the city of Jerusalem (or all of Palestine?) under the direct control of the Pope/Vatican as some kind of modern crusader state!