-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
That was fast! 
Also: I love what I see. Will a person who dies in one instance of a country be alive in another instance of it?
Is that AI USA?
Also: I love what I see.
Will a person who dies in one instance of a country be alive in another instance of it?Is that AI USA?
Is that Ukraine with a different flag and name, or is it a completely different Ukraine (different tag)?
Completely new tag. And it's awesome. I have had fun times recreating the dystopia from Robert Harris's Fatherland.
The Crimea was never a part of Reichskommissariat Ukraine but under German military administration. It was to be annexed directly into the Reich as 'Gotengau' after the war.
There are other mistakes as well, but I'll only point them out if you ask nicely.
There are other mistakes as well, but I'll only point them out if you ask nicely.
Very nice (except for the flag). I'm intrigued to see what other options Germany has for re-structuring Europe.
Though I must mention that Finland should have East Karelia and quite likely Leningrad too. Hitler planned on flooding Leningrad and giving Finland the rest of the Karelian Isthmus down to the Neva river. Even if for some reason this doesn't happen, then Leningrad should become the German puppet of the Free State of St.Petersburg. Mordovia and Udmurtia should be separated from Reichskommissariat Moskau. It might also be a good idea to break down the Caucasus.
Btw, I take it you used this map as an example for Eastern Europe? http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/uusieurooppa.png If so, notice that the Reichskommissariat Ostland and Kaukasus aren't two countries, but a whole bunch.
PS. WTF, Morocco?!
Though I must mention that Finland should have East Karelia and quite likely Leningrad too. Hitler planned on flooding Leningrad and giving Finland the rest of the Karelian Isthmus down to the Neva river. Even if for some reason this doesn't happen, then Leningrad should become the German puppet of the Free State of St.Petersburg. Mordovia and Udmurtia should be separated from Reichskommissariat Moskau. It might also be a good idea to break down the Caucasus.
Btw, I take it you used this map as an example for Eastern Europe? http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/uusieurooppa.png If so, notice that the Reichskommissariat Ostland and Kaukasus aren't two countries, but a whole bunch.
PS. WTF, Morocco?!
Is it one of the option of Bitter Peace? I mean will I have a choice between creating Reichkommisariats, following Rosenbers/Ribentrop plan of creating real Ukraine, Bylorussia and the ex soviet republics or simpy annex european parts of the USSR?
As far as I understand AI now can launch nuclear strikes? It is awesome. For my complete happiness what I need is that AI can launch operation overlord, Husky (USA/UK) or operation Sea Lion or even invasion of the USA by Germany. Is it possible for Geman AI to launch an invasion in the Unites states for example if the have defeated UK and USSR?
As far as I understand AI now can launch nuclear strikes? It is awesome. For my complete happiness what I need is that AI can launch operation overlord, Husky (USA/UK) or operation Sea Lion or even invasion of the USA by Germany. Is it possible for Geman AI to launch an invasion in the Unites states for example if the have defeated UK and USSR?
None of this was ever planned by Hitler. Leningrad was to razed to the ground, independent Mordovia or Udmurtia is pure fantasy (even Rosenberg didn't suggest anything remotely like that). Caucasus was to be exploited by Germany as a Reichskommissariat and eventually transferred to Turkey as a whole (Hitler stated this in March 1941).
That map is historically inaccurate. Here's a map by real historians. Only the Finnish territorial gains in Kola and Karelia are missing.
Andrey and Manfred, you miss my point on Leningrad. The city was to be flooded/razed to the ground like I already said, but the province in-game is not just Leningrad, but also the rest of the Karelian Isthmus, and that was to go to Finland. And yes, Hitler did plan to give the rest of the K.Isthmus to Finland.
Udmurtia and Mordovia weren't in Rosenbergs plans, but they're Finno-Ugric people and the Germans AFAIK didn't plan to resettle those parts of Russia (at least not extensively like the Baltics and the Crimea). The Germans viewed Finland as an ally and kin people of the Finns would've likely received a far better treatment than the rest in Russia. Actually such treatment already occurred IRL when the Germans handed over Ingrian Finns to Finland, where they much enjoyed living and working. At the very least the Finnic people under German rule that weren't sent to Finland would receive autonomy.
Define "real" historians? The map you claim to be made by "real" historians doesn't even mention Finnish gains, how am I supposed to take such a map seriously? And actually that map is wrong in other places too. If we are to take the re-creation of Burgundy as a Nazi state ruled by the Waffen-SS seriously, although it's based only on what Himmler told to his personal massager, as well as the incorporation of Norway into the Reich which also lacks any serious evidence, then we might as well include Belgian Congo as a Finnish colony. After all, Germany's foreign ministry had in 1942 unofficially promised us Belgian Congo as a colony after WWII.
Udmurtia and Mordovia weren't in Rosenbergs plans, but they're Finno-Ugric people and the Germans AFAIK didn't plan to resettle those parts of Russia (at least not extensively like the Baltics and the Crimea). The Germans viewed Finland as an ally and kin people of the Finns would've likely received a far better treatment than the rest in Russia. Actually such treatment already occurred IRL when the Germans handed over Ingrian Finns to Finland, where they much enjoyed living and working. At the very least the Finnic people under German rule that weren't sent to Finland would receive autonomy.
Define "real" historians? The map you claim to be made by "real" historians doesn't even mention Finnish gains, how am I supposed to take such a map seriously? And actually that map is wrong in other places too. If we are to take the re-creation of Burgundy as a Nazi state ruled by the Waffen-SS seriously, although it's based only on what Himmler told to his personal massager, as well as the incorporation of Norway into the Reich which also lacks any serious evidence, then we might as well include Belgian Congo as a Finnish colony. After all, Germany's foreign ministry had in 1942 unofficially promised us Belgian Congo as a colony after WWII.
Yes, I agree. The new "German"-Finnish border was to be on the River Neva.
This is speculation. The Ingrians were handed over to Finland because Ingermanland was reserved for German colonization. It was to be totally emptied of ALL ethnic groups. The Finno-Ugrics were not considered equal to Germanics, btw (Generalplan Ost designated only 50% of Estonians suitable for Germanization).
Someone who earns his living as a historian. Not an amateur.
The Finnish claims are missing because they were only unofficially promised to the Finnish Foreign Minister Witting by Hitler in December 1941. In 1942, Hitler was still speculating that Finland might be annexed into the "Germanic Reich" in the distant future, so nothing was officially decided. See book.The map you claim to be made by "real" historians doesn't even mention Finnish gains, how am I supposed to take such a map seriously? And actually that map is wrong in other places too. If we are to take the re-creation of Burgundy as a Nazi state ruled by the Waffen-SS seriously, although it's based only on what Himmler told to his personal massager, as well as the incorporation of Norway into the Reich which also lacks any serious evidence, then we might as well include Belgian Congo as a Finnish colony. After all, Germany's foreign ministry had in 1942 unofficially promised us Belgian Congo as a colony after WWII.
SS-State of Burgundy was Himmler's fantasies, but it is a fact that a portion of western France was to be annexed. The Reich Interior Ministry produced a memo detailing the planned annexation and "Germanization" of Burgundy already in June 1940. See journal article.
As for Norway, your ignorace shows. Hitler stated in 1941 that he "would never again leave Norway" and was planning to build a huge city called 'Neu Drontheim' as the capital of Germanized Scandinavia. See book.
Please name other errors that you spot on the map.
Last edited:
Most theories on how Europe would have ended up looking had Germany won WWII are speculation. A lot of speculation are based on "what Hitler thought/said", yet he said a lot of things and did the other, or ended up changing his mind.
The text suggests this hypothetical "Germanic Reich" would've been a federation.
As were Hitler's dreams of a German Scandinavia. One can dream a lot of things, but putting them into practice is a whole other story. Yes, even when you're the Führer of the country with Europe's most powerful economy.
Among other things, I've read some crap about Denmark being intended to be Germanized and incorporated as "Reichsgau Nordmark". However German treatment of the Danes during WWII shows that this clearly wasn't the intention. I'd say it's pretty clear that Germany had no imperial interests in the Nordic countries. A part of France beyond Elsass-Lothringen would have been annexed into Germany and be colonized by Germans. That was made clear already in 1940. The intended fate of Holland and Belgium is less clear.
See above. Btw this book also talks of "Welthaupstadt Germania". There's absolutely no proof that Hitler ever intended to re-name Berlin into that. It's just something Speer came up with in his personal writings. Again I must ask you, how can something, in this case this book, presenting fiction as fact be taken seriously?
Very often professional historians are wrong, and very many of these historians disagree with each other, just like is the case with amateur historians. Also, an amateur historian can be just as informed, if not more so, as a professional one, especially if he/she has a lot of time available to study history.
The credibility of a historian does not come from whether one gets to fill one's wallet for writing a few books and making a few speeches, but on how one bases his/her opinions and how credible those sources are in turn. I personally also find a lot of non-mainstream historians to be a lot more talented than most mainstream historians. Largely because they have a special passion for their research and use fresh sources (such as recently declassified archives). It's a lot easier to be a successful "professional" mainstream historian because all you need to do is preach the same shit mainstream historians have been preaching for decades (or centuries, depending on the subject).
Actually, come think of it, I have many books made by these "non-amateur historians", whom you think are better informed simply because they get paid, with maps of Finland and Poland in 1939 with their 1945 borders. 'Nuff said.
The southern boundaries of Germany (in Italy) wouldn't have become possible unless Italy switched sides like it did historically. Unless of course Hitler would've betrayed Mussolini and invaded Italy anyway, but this is extremely unlikely.
Last edited:
No, it is well established what Hitler's goals concerning Scandinavia and the Benelux countries were. I suggest you read, for example, Hitler's War Aims (both volumes) by Norman Rich (1974), which detailes the plans accurately. Scandinavia and Benelux were to be permanently annexed into the Germanic Reich. Actually, in the case of Luxembourg and Belgium, this was already done during the war (Reichsgau Flandern, Reichsgau Wallonien and Reichsgau Moselland).
The Danish political system was allowed to continue because of reasons of Realpolitik, but post-war the Danish Nazi party and the local Germanic SS were to take over. See Rich (1974). In Norway the Quisling party was increasingly marginalized as the war progressed, and Norwegian SS men like Jonas Lie were given more and more power.
The renaming is also mentioned in Tischgespräche. I think it's laughable to call Speer's memoirs "fiction" without any basis. There are a number of German books written on this topic, I can recommend a few if you speak German.
No, just no.
You are basing this notion on the idea that Italy (or any Axis country for that matter) would be able to challenge German hegemony in the post-war world. Knowing Hitler's dislike for monarchy and the Catholic Church, an occupation of Italy and the deposition of the King would be more than likely.
Well, they already had a foothold on Scandinavia - Norway - and they didn't want to give it back easily...
Occupation of Italy? More war after years of struggle? Church's role was already marginalised by 1940, when most of Europe was under German occupation or in its sphere of influence. A potential puppet pope could even be beneficial and would strengthen the myth of the Germans as the keepers of civilisation.
I wonder Bulgaria and Romania were annexed because USSR during war manage to defeat them or this was post-war millitary conflicts between Italy and those two countries (with help of certain events)
Also it will be pretty interesting to see how Western Hemisphere was incorporated into the Third Reich. Will it be simply a Nazi pupet goverment in the US or the country will be divided between Japan and Germany
Also it will be pretty interesting to see how Western Hemisphere was incorporated into the Third Reich. Will it be simply a Nazi pupet goverment in the US or the country will be divided between Japan and Germany
Well, it's true that the Nazis wanted to create some kind of European Union (and indeed many Nazis like Goebbels envisioned Europe to be unified by the year 2000), but you seem to think that Hitler was a race-crazy warmongerer who would never stop and would conquer practically all of Europe and lead it from Berlin. Though by now I assume you're German, and that's pretty much the propaganda they teach modern Germans about Hitler, so I'm not really surprised.
It's a completely unrealistic option for the Germans to colonize everything you say was planned to be annexed. Already with the East alone the Germans had centuries of Germanization and pacification to do to make the region a core part of Greater Germany. They simply didn't have the resources to maintain control over all of Europe without giving the local people more self-governance. This was already done during the war in Russia and the Balkans.
I don't claim Speer's memoirs are fiction. The book claims that Hitler said that the new Berlin will be called the world capital "Germania" (Welthaupstadt Germania), and THAT is total fiction. Hitler never said such a thing.
Really? Funny how in the quote you left out the bit where I gave a clear example of how countless book-making historians have made huge errors on something as simple as political borders. Professional historians too are just people and they make tons of errors. You also ignore the fact that since the 1990s a lot of newly declassified information has come available and debunked a lot of stuff written in the 1980s and before.
Again, you seem to think that Hitler was a warmonger with no end to his conquests. Amusingly enough, and I have to mention this since we're talking about his plans now, he planned to retire to his hometown of Linz in the late 1940s or early 1950s, where he would devote the rest of his life with artistic pursuits. Kind of doesn't fit in with your views now does it?
Though I suppose it's pointless to debate with you. I can only hope the devs see more reason and continue to make the decisions plausible.