That means Estonia won't be a nation ITTL and even if they did exist, they would be a part of someone else.
Still tragic to what happened to the ethnc group due to Stalin's madness
That means Estonia won't be a nation ITTL and even if they did exist, they would be a part of someone else.
Estonia's only choice now is to encourage reproduction.Still tragic to what happened to the ethnc group due to Stalin's madness
Or import the Estonian Diaspora across the globe.Estonia's only choice now is to encourage reproduction.
Didn't the Ukrainians just stay where they were? It was mostly Poles from Lvov and the rest of the lands east of the Curzon Line that resettled Silesia.If the Germans do so, after having reunited East and West Germany, Berlin, Saar some years in the past (perhaps also add in the small amount of land given to the Dutch after WWII, then sold back), plus Allied Austria (which we presume might be a bit like Austria IOTL, which was snooty about Jews wanting their stuff back while they staffed the cabinet with former members of the Nazi party). as well as not recognizing the border between themselves and Poland... Yes, I feel Germany would go back to being the pariah of Europe. Doesn't matter if they senv over military forces, going after an area that was clearly and unequivocally ceded away to the countries they had a three-step plan to murder virtually the entire populations off... I don't think the Poles and Lithuanians would go into the land really, as the Poles had to resort to populating Pomerania and Silesia with Galician Ukrainians over from the land lost to the Soviets in order to fill the land. Kaliningrad would deem it wise to fight to the death against infaders, while the Poles and Balts would want to keep the Germans away, as well as Russians. Might be that the area becomes extremely crowded if people are pushed over the border, but even more likely any Russians are sent back to Russia, before their own countries are annexed. After all, both sides of the Soviet Civil War are trading fire with nuclear weapons.
I'm not entirely sure. I think it may have been some of the more mixe dpopuoatoin, of the Galicians left in the Polish areas. Only read about them in passing some years in the past.Didn't the Ukrainians just stay where they were? It was mostly Poles from Lvov and the rest of the lands easta of the Curzon Line that resettled Silesia.
Think the President of Afghanistan gave their mineral contracts to Japan a decade back.Oil contracts are highly political. If Russia is being fed and rebuilt with American aid, then the Russians know who to give the oil contract to.
Sure it's politicized but sometimes other companies can join too.Think the President of Afghanistan gave their mineral contracts to Japan a decade back.
How's Estonia doing? Since @Augenis wrote a really neat update about Lithuania's recovery ans briefly mentioned Latvia, I was curious about their northern sorta-bretheren. IIRC ethnic Estonians got practically destroyed by Stalin - Has it been completely integrated into Russia at this point? Is an Estonian revival even possible at this point?
There was a mention that the native Estonian population was reduced to 20%. It is under the CNS's control by now, and with such little amount of the bearers of the Estonian heritage, the Estonian national revival seems impossible.
Estonia's only choice now is to encourage reproduction.
Or import the Estonian Diaspora across the globe.
What could Finland do to help them?
What could Finland do to help them?
Or those deported to Siberia and Central Asia.
IOTL, it went back to the Finns in 1956. While the extra time with Stalin might make some changes, I imagine he would have been content enough with the Finalnization of the area, especially as he know had so much of the Baltic under Soviet control, so less need to demand areas from Finland to use as ice-free ports. Unless an alternative fate was mentioned already- Actually, scratch that. Reading up on it, it seems the original lease was for 50 years, and the Soviet left early in part to help along get benevolent neutrality from the Finns. Seems they mostly kept artillery there anyways, which wouldn't be too helpful for either side of the civil War if it just stayed there. I imagine they keep their heads down, while the National Council group tries to end the lease in exchange for some supplies from Finland.Finnish politics is probably quiet different compared OTL due longer living Stalin. Could Finland get Porkkala back and join to UN?
IOTL, it went back to the Finns in 1956. While the extra time with Stalin might make some changes, I imagine he would have been content enough with the Finalnization of the area, especially as he know had so much of the Baltic under Soviet control, so less need to demand areas from Finland to use as ice-free ports. Unless an alternative fate was mentioned already- Actually, scratch that. Reading up on it, it seems the original lease was for 50 years, and the Soviet left early in part to help along get benevolent neutrality from the Finns. Seems they mostly kept artillery there anyways, which wouldn't be too helpful for either side of the civil War if it just stayed there. I imagine they keep their heads down, while the National Council group tries to end the lease in exchange for some supplies from Finland.
Demark, Iceland, and Norway were already in NATO. Though honestly, I don't know the year in the timeline we are at, since I can't find the last post. Anyways, I think the EDC was a bit more French inspired. Seems the French dropped out of it IOTL though, and it had something to do with West Germany Apparently so they could join the EDC, but not NATO? Not sure. Anyways, I see problems with Germany. And yah, the Finns and Swedes might join a group that can support them, if they can do it fast, but they wouldn't make any sudden moves. Since France IOTL would not share control of the nukes with the EDC (Understandable enough), they would want the Americans or British backing them, or they would try to become one Nordic bloc and hope the various Russians didn't care too much about it.Although with a more dangerous USSR, it would be safe to assume that the Scandinavian countries would join the European Defense Community.
Demark, Iceland, and Norway were already in NATO. Though honestly, I don't know the year in the timeline we are at, since I can't find the last post. Anyways, I think the EDC was a bit more French inspired. Seems the French dropped out of it IOTL though, and it had something to do with West Germany Apparently so they could join the EDC, but not NATO? Not sure. Anyways, I see problems with Germany. And yah, the Finns and Swedes might join a group that can support them, if they can do it fast, but they wouldn't make any sudden moves. Since France IOTL would not share control of the nukes with the EDC (Understandable enough), they would want the Americans or British backing them, or they would try to become one Nordic bloc and hope the various Russians didn't care too much about it.
Yes, he had a tendency to be rather Napoleonic Continetal System (if only Napoleon had come up with an alliance name) in trying to keep out possible Anglo-American influence, and to focus on integration areas that were basically the realm of Charlemagne. Still, any agreement on sharing nuclear weapons would have simply made the denial by the French legislature by an even greater margin. Well, unless de Gaulle or someone used special presidential powers to push it through somehow. I expect it would be agreed to and then the French kept hold of them anyways. Still, Italy retained fascists and had a sizable socialist movement, while West Germany had a good deal of Nazis in office. Even if they didn't, how is going to hand over weapons that cost a fortune to those who tried dismembering your country in living memory?Yeah because Charles Du Gaulle was a complete asshole to work with
Yes, he had a tendency to be rather Napoleonic Continetal System (if only Napoleon had come up with an alliance name) in trying to keep out possible Anglo-American influence, and to focus on integration areas that were basically the realm of Charlemagne. Still, any agreement on sharing nuclear weapons would have simply made the denial by the French legislature by an even greater margin. Well, unless de Gaulle or someone used special presidential powers to push it through somehow. I expect it would be agreed to and then the French kept hold of them anyways. Still, Italy retained fascists and had a sizable socialist movement, while West Germany had a good deal of Nazis in office. Even if they didn't, how is going to hand over weapons that cost a fortune to those who tried dismembering your country in living memory?
EDIT: Or did you mean De Gaulle was a jerk to the legislature, which was why they refused to support it?
I don't know, but Finns need to get their cheap booze somehow.What could Finland do to help them?
how long before Nappy post his update?