I need your opinion about something

[unmerged(62478)]

I want to edit the Barbarossa peace, but I kinda cant decide which areas to add. I will add the Red area anyway, but I'm kinda in a dispute with myself about areas A, B and C. So your opinion about it would be appreciated.

1. Add only red area
2. Red + C
3. Red + B
4. Red + B + C
5. Red + B + C + A

If you have additional time make an opinion about what the victory conditions for Germany should be with those new borders.

 

[Orm]

It's a bit confusing when you say "the red area" when you probably mean the area outlined with red borders? I'm assuming you won't add the entire SU except those areas to the BP?

 

[Pal]

I'm pretty sure he means he will add some parts to the USSR after bitter peace, not to Germany...

I'd love to hear the reasoning for any of those areas...

 

[unmerged(138457)]

I'd love to hear the reasoning for any of those areas...

Me too

IRL Germany would demand Arkhangelsk, especially if they would not have Norwegian ports. And A part comes awful close of Moscow. I'm not sure if Germans would want that.

 

[Orm]

I'm pretty sure he means he will add some parts to the USSR after bitter peace, not to Germany...

Ah...o

 

[unmerged(62478)]

By the red area I mean the light red (And yes it will be added to the ussr). The border should represent the A-A (Arakastahn-Archangelsk line) which the Germans itended to have as their border after the war, but I kinda don't know if the areas ABC should be added to it.

 

[JRHINDO]

RED+C+ the big province of B

 

[unmerged(138457)]

red+c+ the big province of b

+1

 

[unmerged(105989)]

I agree. This border follows the line of the Volga for the most part, making it a clear natural border that would have been easy to control. The Germans must control Archangel though, as I don't see them giving up an arctic port like that, especially so close to the border.

 

[von_Ysselstein]

There are plenty maps available on the net showing the Germania Empire after GER WWII victory, very good to use as a reference for adjusting the bp event f.e. this one:

This one here is fairly accurate

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/attachment.php?attachmentid=48204&stc=1&d=1211202554

 

[unmerged(62478)]

There are plenty maps available on the net showing the Germania Empire after GER WWII victory, very good to use as a reference for adjusting the bp event f.e. this one:

This one here is fairly accurate

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/attachment.php?attachmentid=48204&stc=1&d=1211202554

On this map the Germans own too much teritory and my qestion is cetered about the map I posted, if I wanted to use the map you proposed, I could also leve it be.

 

[von_Ysselstein]

On this map the Germans own too much teritory and my qestion is cetered about the map I posted, if I wanted to use the map you proposed, I could also leve it be.

Okay but on which facts do you base your border proposals I can see no historical reference there (f.e. planning stages of German High Command) so doesnt seem reasonable to me while the one I posted are based on available historical information. Its just that I dont like fanatsy outputs when it can be made (alternate) historically accurate instead... This is what I think

 

[unmerged(105989)]

Well, I have to go with Delex on this. The Brest-Litovsk treaty which ended WW I in the East didn't give Germany near that amount of territory. It stopped short of Moscow and Leningrad. So not quite sure where the 'alternate historical' comes from, assuming we ignore the oxymoron itself (not meaning to be offensive, just using the word ). Delex's stop line makes as much sense as any other, and has solid operational underpinnings.

 

[von_Ysselstein]

Well, I have to go with Delex on this. The Brest-Litovsk treaty which ended WW I in the East didn't give Germany near that amount of territory. It stopped short of Moscow and Leningrad. So not quite sure where the 'alternate historical' comes from, assuming we ignore the oxymoron itself (not meaning to be offensive, just using the word ). Delex's stop line makes as much sense as any other, and has solid operational underpinnings.

Yes, of course. Guess it's a too wide field of interpretation. Many historians argue that despite the initial agenda (Ural border more or less) the Volga river wouldve been the final natural and political border making sense

Still have to mention- at certain date, the general planning for the new "Colonies" in Eastern Europe reached even further than Ural mountains, while in the south the new border was always planned to be anchoring the caspian sea

 

[unmerged(105989)]

Just curious, what is your source(s) for some of this planning info? Not being contentious, I'm rather curious about reading up on this. I'm a WW II scholar in training (at least as my secondary profession).

As for the border, you're right, really, the point with alternate history is that as long as you can build a plausible story line - go for it, be it the Urals, the Pacific, or the Volga.

 

[von_Ysselstein]

Just curious, what is your source(s) for some of this planning info? Not being contentious, I'm rather curious about reading up on this. I'm a WW II scholar in training (at least as my secondary profession).

As for the border, you're right, really, the point with alternate history is that as long as you can build a plausible story line - go for it, be it the Urals, the Pacific, or the Volga.

When curious reading up about this, I'd say the sources for the General Plan of the East are your friend Many leading Geography scientists from the German side were involved in this planning process, and its well documented... But it's pretty much a topic which is better not discussed on this board

 

[unmerged(62478)]

Okay but on which facts do you base your border proposals I can see no historical reference there (f.e. planning stages of German High Command) so doesnt seem reasonable to me while the one I posted are based on available historical information. Its just that I dont like fanatsy outputs when it can be made (alternate) historically accurate instead... This is what I think

Its the A-A line, which is a historical fact, but i im trying to define where its Northern border should run in hoi 2.

 

[unmerged(138457)]

Its the A-A line, which is a historical fact, but i im trying to define where its Northern border should run in hoi 2.

Surely you have placed Archangel to the wrong side of the border then. As I'm positive that Germans would not have let the ruskies keep a navalbase and port THAT important. Remember that Murmansk at the time was small potatoes in comparison.

And also I do have some written word to back me up. It just happens that I'm in process of reading this book about AOK Norwegens operations in the eastern front and they make really blunt remarks about the advance to Archangel and beyond as well as about the governing issues when there.

 

[unmerged(62478)]

Surely you have placed Archangel to the wrong side of the border then. As I'm positive that Germans would not have let the ruskies keep a navalbase and port THAT important. Remember that Murmansk at the time was small potatoes in comparison.

And also I do have some written word to back me up. It just happens that I'm in process of reading this book about AOK Norwegens operations in the eastern front and they make really blunt remarks about the advance to Archangel and beyond as well as about the governing issues when there.

The original idea was to push the Soviets to the A-A line, only later it was decided to push them even further. And part of my map is also centered at smooth borders, which is also one of the reasons why not one of the A-A cites is actually German.

 

[unmerged(74599)]

Okay but on which facts do you base your border proposals I can see no historical reference there (f.e. planning stages of German High Command) so doesnt seem reasonable to me while the one I posted are based on available historical information. Its just that I dont like fanatsy outputs when it can be made (alternate) historically accurate instead... This is what I think

Well, here is a fact: There is no evidence that Germany was going to give even partial autonomy to Lativia, Lithuania, or Estonia, at least based on the historical record of what actually happened, yet your map indicates that these are not included in "greater Germany", so one really has to question the basis of the map, as a "fact."

So, this map is clearly conjectural, and in that light, its hardly proper to assert that it is "factual", when indeed, it is totally "counter-factual". Sure, there is some basis for asserting that this might be something like the future of a victorious Germany, as they envisioned it, but they envisaged a lot of things, and as we know realities made a mess of the visions. Certainly, losing the war (the factual case) shows that their plans were open to amendment by the actions of others. In that light, there is no reason to suspect that a "peace" agreement with Russia would not have meant giving way on an issue or too, here and there, despite whatever grand outlines their cartographers splashed about on their maps.

In fact, I will assert that a peace agreement based on the map you have proposed would not in fact result in a peace agreement, and that "peace" would have to be predicated on the return of substantial Russian territory. A peace agreement, is more often than not also a subject of negotiation, and the terms set out in that map would certainly be ones that no Russian government would agree to on any terms whatsoever.

There isn't even any Russia in that map. That is "total conquest". Now if you proposed "total conquest" with some puppet neutrals scattered around the edges in the form new "national states" that might be possible, but this would not be achieved by any peace agreement in the terms of a "bitter peace" -- that is something else.

There is a total conquest option available to the German player, he just rejects "bitter peace" pushes on and starts releasing puppets. But as far as "peace" goes, Delex's argument seems to be more reasonable. If there is going to be "peace" then peace would require some terms which Russia could agree to.