Valkyrie successful: a different Cold War

I would imagine that because the USSR is both: more paranoid, and: having to hold down less of Eastern Europe, that the Cold War might last longer yet still be much more violent.
 

JJohnson

Banned
What do you think, guys, would this map of democratic federal Germany look better ?

I have a few questions regarding the map you posted (Which I like quite a bit, btw):
Would Lübeck get restored in this timeline to a city-state?
And is Bremen absorbed into Lower Saxony? I like the idea of Saarpfalz :)
Would we still get Baden-Württemberg ITTL?
Do you think Tyrol-Vorarlberg would make a bit more sense as a state (and including the german-speaking portion of Italy's Tyrol in its peace deal)? I would like to see that state form up since they're right next to each other, and they've had more history together in the former Austria than Württemberg-Tirol might've had.

As for the other states: Lower/Upper Austria combined makes sense; I also think Styria should remain, and have Carinthia join Salzburg as one state - that would make sense, an balance the power of the states too.

Do you think you could post up a map of the second/third order divisions (Regierungsbezirke and Kreise)? And possibly of Post-War Europe?

Also, what's the status of the Volga Germans?

James
 
Last edited:

JJohnson

Banned
That's it. I really can't understand why people keep getting this mental image that Valkyrie success leads to a crypto-Nazi or para-fascist German regime for the ages, and sincerely I have got fed up and annoyed as Hell at people hijacking the thread to harp on the point, which has been debated to death anyway. I cannot but think that a lot of it comes from bad political bias, or willful ignorance of the basic political differences between a nazist, a fascist, an authoritarian conservative/nationalist, and a democratic conservative/nationalist.

There's no real shot of some crypto-nazi regime coming into power, I agree with you there. With denazification OTL and ITTL, and the war crimes trials, there's no fascist coming to power.

I would say it comes from a bad political teaching that fascist must be right-wing, which comes from the back-and-forth the nazis and commies had with each other in the 30s and 40s. Commies called their opponents fascists and Fascists likewise to discredit them. Both were authoritarian, totalitarian, statist regimes. Fascism is based on action for the sake of action, which usually means state action to bring about change, rule by or admiration of an intellectual elite, and using businesses to support the regime, and Communism is more state planning for the desired end, with businesses being actually owned by the government. There's a difference between them and their totalitarian tendencies, and democratic parties such as the SDP, FDP, CDU. Shortly put, big difference.
 

abc123

Banned
The Soviets, apart from their breakthrough in Romania, which puts Moldavia, Wallachia, Bulgaria, Vardar Macedonia, and Serbia under their thumb, are stalemated on the Summer 1944 frontlines, because the Valkurie government, seeing a possibility to achieve peace with the A-A, throws every military resources it has left on the Eastern front. This makes them able to resist the Soviets on the Neman-Narew-Vistula-Carpathians-Sava-Drina line,


So, what about Croatia and Slovenia in this timeline?
:confused:
 

abc123

Banned
Yep, this is very true. The issue is, would Greater Croatia need unwilling Slovenia in order to be an effective anti-Communist bulwark in the Balkans, to the point that the Western powers would exercise strong pressure to keep "West Yugoslavia" toghether, or would they find two satellites more beneficial ?

"Greater Croatia" has no need for Slovenia.
Slovenia is separate state, and Slovenians are a separate nation. If they want to live with the Croats in same state- OK, if not- good bye Slovenia...
 
Top