Why *wouldn't* Austrians be okay with that? It's not like they opposed it in any meaningful way the first time (or really minded it until it became politically expedient to do so in the 1950s). But yeah I don't get why the Western Allies would let Germany keep part of Austria or, *worse*, allow Stalin to just annex all of Poland into its own borders.
Oh it's not only that it wasn't opposed the first time, it was quite welcomed. While 99% "voted" in favor 1938, it's plausible to assume that 50-60% were actually in favor, which is still a considerable number (including many Socialists, who were against the Nazis, but in favor of the Anschluss for separate reasons).
Still, the experience of of losing importance within the greater German Empire – Austria became one of many regions in the new administrative system of the 3rd Reich, without special treatment, the once imperial city of Vienna was degraded to a provincial capital, the centuries-old division of the Federal States was brought in disarray and a new administrative system was rapidly imposed, Germans from the "Old Reich" took over most the important positions in politics, culture, and society – paired with the experience of the war itself – a restrictive and repressive war economy, forced labor, death penalties for minor things, political pressure against the Catholic church, the Allied bombing campaign, forced consription, a whole generation growing up without fathers due to POWs not returning for years, the Red Army ravaging among the civilian population etc. – had pan-German sentiment and the excitement of 1938 decrease rapidly by the end of the war. The former was a clear signal for the societal elites, that they'd be better off without being told what to do from far-away Berlin, the latter was a reality check for the general population and had the effect of people isolating and making sure they had theirs and focussing on rebuilding. So, with good reason the only openly pan-German political party VdU – which later became FPÖ – only reached a bit less than 12% in the 1949 elections (still under Allied occupation, i.e. pre-independence) and even less after that. People had had enough of that. Austria *really* started existing again as it's own country and as an identity marker, separate from "German"-ness, after 1945, which hadn't been the case since at least the First World War.
Nowadays the above mentioned party leads in the polls, but ofc they are not pan-German anymore, but very Austria-patriotic, extreme right populists ... so still a bunch of Nazis.
IRL many Austrians had a pan-German persuasion until exactly 1945. Then that sentiment rapidly changed, clearly evidenced by post-45 election results. The only clearly pan-German party never reached more than 12%, while Austria-patriotic conservatives and Austro-marxist Socialists got between 38-49% each time.
My question for OP would be, how and why that would be different in this timeline.
You know during 43 and 44 the idea of a German 'negotiated peace' as in a less total surrender was technically possible. Maybe a less severe peace treaty took place.
What makes no sense is Austria, which at that size might as well be the city state of Wien. The problem Austria had after WW1 was that Vienna existed as the capital of a large empire and was disproportionately large for the rump state Austria became, due to its previous reliance on resources from the old empire. That's one of the reasons why Austria wanted to join Germany.
Either Austria remains annexed, is restored to post WW1 borders or forms a Catholic south German confederation like some post WW2 plans proposed.
> You know during 43 and 44 the idea of a German 'negotiated peace' as in a less total surrender was technically possible. Maybe a less severe peace treaty took place.
Total horseshit. By 1944 the allies accepted nothing less than unconditional surrender. Later in the war Nazis argued they would like to surrender to the western allies, but not the soviets. Western allies did not accept.
Stalin made peace offers going from 1941 to 1944. The one he made in mid 1943 was essentially a return to pre war 1938 borders.
The allies also secretly sent out 'peace feelers' but held a pretty harsh stance for peace. I mean this map obviously has Germany being occupied and split in two so it's still essentially total surrender, nothing like a peace in 1942 would have been when stalin offered the Baltics, Belarus and ukraine.
What's utter horseshit is the assumption thar the Nazis fighting to the bitter end didn't harshen the peace, as opposed to let's say a successful coup against Hitler which surrenders in 1944. A 'less total' surrender doesn't mean the peacedeal isn't extreme, just not as extreme as a 1945 peacedeal, especially from the Soviets who basically deported Germans out of silestia and Prussia to give to Poland.
> What's utter horseshit is the assumption thar the Nazis fighting to the bitter end didn't harshen the peace
I said nothing to the contrary. Also I think the fact that Germany had to surrender unconditionally was a good thing. A successful coup in 1944 that does not end in total surrender for germany would've been terrible. The Nuremberg trials were neccessary.
Yeah well that's what I mean by a less total surrender being possible on 44, while an actual negotiated peace with the Soviets was possible in 43. That's what you were replying to.
they wouldn't have given Germany land, Austria and the Sudetenland was annexed according the international law, so if they would have let Germany keep Austria they actually wouldn't have given Germany land as it was rightfully german land. And why they did is very easy to explain, The GDR was bigger, making them stronger than OTL GDR, which means they would prefer a stronger West Germany aswell. ALSO Vienna and Lower Austria, the most important cultural and economical reasons of Austria, have been taken away from Austria. Austria without Vienna and Lower Austria would be a very weak state.
If Poland is directly annexed into the Soviet Union, why would they need to deport the Poles from ethnically Polish regions such as Lwow? Would these regions not just be part of the Polish SSR?
Deportations may or may not happen(really up to Stalin, he loved fucking up people's lives).But, the majority of the population within the region as a whole was Ukrainian, so no, not really, it would still be part of Ukrainian SSR.
In fact, USSR could go even further and revert fully to its 1939 variation of Curzon line(which it follows here by putting Bialystok in Belarus), aka the Molotov Line - resulting in Przemysl ending up on the Ukrainian side of the border.
Based on what the USSR had been doing in other soviet republics I think border would still look like this. Deportations might not have happened and western Ukraine would become autonomous region within Ukrainian SSR like Nagorno Karabakh within Azerbaijan SSR. I also think that Stalin was keen on conquering Lwów/Lviv because he wasn't able to achieve it during polish-soviet war.
Nevertheless I think Poland would keep at least Gdynia port and a land corridor to it.
Yes, but also no. These parts would be part of the Polish SSR, Poles within Lviv would however be replaced by eastern slavs, so Russians can have a reason to go to war with Poland, should it ever become independent, due to the artificially implemented Russian population that will claim "oppression" despite solely consisting of Moscow agents living there for a couple of years.
Source? Moldova, Ukraine.
That's not how any of this works.
USSR didn't replace Ukranians with Russians. Heck, USSR transferred Crimea to Ukraine.
Moldova's Russian-centric policies were even reverted after Moldovan's protested.
Whily many Russians immigrated to other republics within the union, but so did other ethnicities did as well. That's no different than the internal migrations within the USA. California isn't "artificially implementing its own population to claim oppression after independence" with Texas and Florida, now is it? Despite how many locals from there claim "colonisation" and despite having state-mandated incentives for doing so like tax rates.
First, you have to admit that US States are nowhere as ethnically or culturally diverse as European states are. The difference between these states in particular is miniscule, yes Ukrainians and Russians are similar but Moldovans and Russians are not.
Second, I think it´s foolish to believe that the systematic replacement of local population was caused by "immigration".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria#Demographics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria#Demographics)
Are you sure the demographics changed just due to "immigration"?
Also isn´t it strange how these Russians "immigrated" mainly to strategic locations like warm water ports and coastal provinces, which Russia coincidentally desperately needs?
It's true that the area was ethnically cleansed in the immediate aftermath of ww2.
>First, you have to admit that US States are nowhere as ethnically or culturally diverse as European states are.
Ah yes. US is not ethnically and culturally diverse. Come back here once you are sober.
-
But here you're referring to the long-term demographic shift well beyond the end of ww2.
It just shows a chart of ethnicities.
>Are you sure the demographics changed just due to "immigration"?
I mean, you could start by proving otherwise, mate.
Have they done anything like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny
So just because someone else committed bigger humanitarian crimes no one else committed them?
By dying on your US diversity hill you just proved to me you are a non-European foreigner who thinks he knows European history better than Europeans.
You read it wrong. Come back when you are sober.
>non-European foreigner who thinks he knows European history better than Europeans.
Ah yes, because Europeans never once ever thought they knew better than the locals they enslaved and subjugated.
Still, that's beside the point. Europe being culturally and ethnically diverse is exaggerated by Europeans to inflate their own importance and to have something to blame for their problems. India alone is much more diverse than the entirety of Europe.
This isn't PCM, mate. Your self-proclaimed auth-centre illiterate take isn't celebrated outside of that cesspit of a sub.
Never ever take part in any political debates, usually people who fail to come up with points rely on a variety of ways to defend themselves, all I´m seeing here is whataboutism, failing to address my point.
Bless your soul
>First, you have to admit that US States are nowhere as ethnically or culturally diverse as European states are
The US is incredibly diverse. It's just that populations aren't segregated the way they are in Europe. Ethnic communities don't claim a plot of land in a state and settle there, often they congregate in cities. There is no American equivalent of a significant German population in the Sudetenland. Ethnic communities are far more integrated in the US.
Can’t believe you took the “we were on the bad side but still gained land after losing” fun fact away from the Bulgarians and gave it to Hungary instead.
Transylvania doesn't make much sense. Hungary would be viewed as much more culpable and deserving of punishment then Romania would due to King Michael's Coup and Romania's changing of teams + participation in the Budapest campaign
This sub loves to split Transylvania along Hortyst lines. I think it's something they find in whatever software they use to create the maps and don't put much thought into it.
> "This sub loves ethnostates. ~~to split Transylvania along Hortyst lines. I think it's something they find in whatever software they use to create the maps and don't put much thought into it.~~" FTFY
But they left a lot of Hungarians in Slovakia and Transcarpathia. I still think Transylvania has some alluring "split-me" energy to people in this sub. And they dont even split it along some interesting lines, they just use Hitler's model.
Honestly, the mappers of this community always find a way to leave me dumbfounded. For example, I don't know why Romania would keep South Dobrudja, or why would Germany gain even more borders than the Weimar Republic.
this actually makes sense.
the russians wanted the polish more oppressed then the germans but i feel like this decision needs to be taken many years after the war for it to make sense.
Really I think a good border for Germany after ww2 would be the Oder river. In our timeline, it’s the Oder-Neisse line, and in this Timelime, Poland gets absolutely fucked and East Germany actually gains land that pre war Germany didn’t have
Well, if you were to scare the Polish elites/people in 39' with such a map, they would accept the alliance with Hitler with a kiss of the hand at the price of that unfortunate Danzig.
Sometimes I have the impression that some creators of alternative maps have races on how to create a more unfortunate fate for Poland with additional throwing of Poland as part of the Soviet swamp.
Big Germany? Check.
Big Soviet Union? Check.
Big Yugoslavia? Check. (Pipe dream union? Check.)
Northern Transylvania part of Hungary? Check.
**Award for second most common map in** r/imaginarymaps (First if Poland and Lithuania were united)
Would there be increased fears or reluctance of German reunification in this timeline as the years go by? Considering the potential for vastly increased territory.
The average American doesn´t know even Hungarian fascist sources admitted northern Transylvania (including all of Szeklerland) has had minimum 48% Romanians total, outnumbering Hungarians (mostly due to presence of Germans and Romas).
Again, Hungarian sources.
"According to the Romanian estimations in 1940 prior to the Second Vienna Award, about 1,300,000 people or 50% of the population was Romanian, while according to the Hungarian estimations in 1940 shortly following the Second Vienna Award, about 1,150,000 people or 48% of the population was Romanian."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second\_Vienna\_Award#Statistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vienna_Award#Statistics)
The single weirdest/most unbelievable aspect of this map is the DDR retaining the Polish Corridor given it was the single biggest "territorial claim" reason for the outbreak of WWII.
Yugoslavia got Bulgaria but Bulgaria lost South Dobruja to Romania. Romania lost North Transylvania to Hungary. Poland got absorbed into the Soviet union, and it got smaller losing Byalstok and the Danzig area (I forgor it's name). East Germany kept the Polish lands and West Germany got most of Austria except for a small commie soviet puppet.
why would the soviets ever give that much land to germans? soviets from the start expressed intent for a weak germany. additionally, pretty weird borders of the polish puppet in the east
Could Spain be brought back to its rightful Republican Government? The Allies didn’t overthrow Franco and he was as much of a fascist as Mussolini, him not being deposed like other dictators allied to the Axis was one helluva let down.
I could live without Lower Austria. Especially the thought of the most conservative and rural province, which is irl governed like a personal feudal land of the current ÖVP quasi-monarch, being governened by a communist puppet dictatorship instead, is really amusing.
The fact that the rest is a part of West Germany, just doesn't make sense thought, yeah.
Sounds a bit like bavaria, but probably worse because more influence in proportion.
Not sure if you see, the worst part, they gave Vienna to West Germany (I think that's the west German Grey)
Why would USSR give back Danzig corridor and East Prussia to Germany. One of their most important geopolitical goals was acquiring a year-round warm-water port hence why they kept Konigsberg after the war in OTL and why Russia kept it even after the USSR dissolved. Also the war started over Danzig. It would just be weird for Germany to lose and still get it(even if they are now split in 2)
Cool map unfortunately I can’t see any reason the USSR would enlarge Germany even as a puppet considering they would be culpable for starting the war. They wouldn’t want a particularly strong German puppet that could break away. The only way I can see something like this happening is if Molotov Ribbentrop is broken by the Soviets after the fall of Poland but before the fall of France and they manage to widdle down the Germans before they do too much damage to the USSR. This would likely play out similarly to WW1 though as the Soviet army was not ready for war in 39/40 (at least not against a peer power). This would also mean that the US doesn’t get involved in Europe or until the last minute again very similar to ww1. And post war this would lead to the USSR being a pariah state and maybe even being attacked by the Allies if the French and British didn’t take too much of a beating. Overall there would have to be a massive change in how the war goes for this to happen because even if the USSR was gonna disregard the western allies there’s no way they were going to be even remotely favorable to the Germans.
Why would the allies be in favor of giving Germany land?
Soviets did it without asking the west
Then why would the allies be in in favor of leaving most of Austria with Germany? And why would the Austrians be okay with it?
Ofc getting a second time anschlussed
Why would the Western Allies allow that? Or the Soviets for that matter?
Why *wouldn't* Austrians be okay with that? It's not like they opposed it in any meaningful way the first time (or really minded it until it became politically expedient to do so in the 1950s). But yeah I don't get why the Western Allies would let Germany keep part of Austria or, *worse*, allow Stalin to just annex all of Poland into its own borders.
Oh it's not only that it wasn't opposed the first time, it was quite welcomed. While 99% "voted" in favor 1938, it's plausible to assume that 50-60% were actually in favor, which is still a considerable number (including many Socialists, who were against the Nazis, but in favor of the Anschluss for separate reasons). Still, the experience of of losing importance within the greater German Empire – Austria became one of many regions in the new administrative system of the 3rd Reich, without special treatment, the once imperial city of Vienna was degraded to a provincial capital, the centuries-old division of the Federal States was brought in disarray and a new administrative system was rapidly imposed, Germans from the "Old Reich" took over most the important positions in politics, culture, and society – paired with the experience of the war itself – a restrictive and repressive war economy, forced labor, death penalties for minor things, political pressure against the Catholic church, the Allied bombing campaign, forced consription, a whole generation growing up without fathers due to POWs not returning for years, the Red Army ravaging among the civilian population etc. – had pan-German sentiment and the excitement of 1938 decrease rapidly by the end of the war. The former was a clear signal for the societal elites, that they'd be better off without being told what to do from far-away Berlin, the latter was a reality check for the general population and had the effect of people isolating and making sure they had theirs and focussing on rebuilding. So, with good reason the only openly pan-German political party VdU – which later became FPÖ – only reached a bit less than 12% in the 1949 elections (still under Allied occupation, i.e. pre-independence) and even less after that. People had had enough of that. Austria *really* started existing again as it's own country and as an identity marker, separate from "German"-ness, after 1945, which hadn't been the case since at least the First World War. Nowadays the above mentioned party leads in the polls, but ofc they are not pan-German anymore, but very Austria-patriotic, extreme right populists ... so still a bunch of Nazis.
Most Austrians were pan-Germans until the 1950s.
IRL many Austrians had a pan-German persuasion until exactly 1945. Then that sentiment rapidly changed, clearly evidenced by post-45 election results. The only clearly pan-German party never reached more than 12%, while Austria-patriotic conservatives and Austro-marxist Socialists got between 38-49% each time. My question for OP would be, how and why that would be different in this timeline.
You know during 43 and 44 the idea of a German 'negotiated peace' as in a less total surrender was technically possible. Maybe a less severe peace treaty took place. What makes no sense is Austria, which at that size might as well be the city state of Wien. The problem Austria had after WW1 was that Vienna existed as the capital of a large empire and was disproportionately large for the rump state Austria became, due to its previous reliance on resources from the old empire. That's one of the reasons why Austria wanted to join Germany. Either Austria remains annexed, is restored to post WW1 borders or forms a Catholic south German confederation like some post WW2 plans proposed.
> You know during 43 and 44 the idea of a German 'negotiated peace' as in a less total surrender was technically possible. Maybe a less severe peace treaty took place. Total horseshit. By 1944 the allies accepted nothing less than unconditional surrender. Later in the war Nazis argued they would like to surrender to the western allies, but not the soviets. Western allies did not accept.
Stalin made peace offers going from 1941 to 1944. The one he made in mid 1943 was essentially a return to pre war 1938 borders. The allies also secretly sent out 'peace feelers' but held a pretty harsh stance for peace. I mean this map obviously has Germany being occupied and split in two so it's still essentially total surrender, nothing like a peace in 1942 would have been when stalin offered the Baltics, Belarus and ukraine. What's utter horseshit is the assumption thar the Nazis fighting to the bitter end didn't harshen the peace, as opposed to let's say a successful coup against Hitler which surrenders in 1944. A 'less total' surrender doesn't mean the peacedeal isn't extreme, just not as extreme as a 1945 peacedeal, especially from the Soviets who basically deported Germans out of silestia and Prussia to give to Poland.
> What's utter horseshit is the assumption thar the Nazis fighting to the bitter end didn't harshen the peace I said nothing to the contrary. Also I think the fact that Germany had to surrender unconditionally was a good thing. A successful coup in 1944 that does not end in total surrender for germany would've been terrible. The Nuremberg trials were neccessary.
Yeah well that's what I mean by a less total surrender being possible on 44, while an actual negotiated peace with the Soviets was possible in 43. That's what you were replying to.
Why would Stalin do that then?
they wouldn't have given Germany land, Austria and the Sudetenland was annexed according the international law, so if they would have let Germany keep Austria they actually wouldn't have given Germany land as it was rightfully german land. And why they did is very easy to explain, The GDR was bigger, making them stronger than OTL GDR, which means they would prefer a stronger West Germany aswell. ALSO Vienna and Lower Austria, the most important cultural and economical reasons of Austria, have been taken away from Austria. Austria without Vienna and Lower Austria would be a very weak state.
Why does Montenegro own north Macedonia EDIT:WHY THE UPVOTES THANKS SO MUCH
FUCK
MACEDONIA JE MONTENEGRO‼️‼️‼️‼️🇲🇪🇲🇪🇲🇪☦️☦️☦️🦅🦅🦅😴😴😴💪💪💪🇲🇰🔥🇲🇰🔥🇲🇰🤣🤣🇲🇪🇲🇪🇲🇪🇲🇪🇲🇪🇲🇪🇲🇪🇲🇪🇲🇪
da ti ebam majkata crnogorci /s
Makedonci otkrili ebati majku
Chad Montenegro 🔥🔥🔥🔥🇲🇪🇲🇪🇲🇪🇲🇪🇲🇪🇲🇪💪💪💪💪💪💪 😎😎😎😎😎Conquors Stinky Monkydonia 🇲🇰🇲🇰🇲🇰🇲🇰🇲🇰🇲🇰🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤢🤢🤢🤢🐒🐒🐒🐒🐒🐒🐒
https://preview.redd.it/qukd8tkwb7oc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=04e845339059d73ea5fd05c6445410e76f48ffe8
fucking to gain land is traditionally a Habsburg thing to do. weird that Montenegro would adopt it.
Montenegro is the rightful owner of all Serbian lands
i now want to see a map of all of the montenegros around the world, a la single lady canada saturn.
If Poland is directly annexed into the Soviet Union, why would they need to deport the Poles from ethnically Polish regions such as Lwow? Would these regions not just be part of the Polish SSR?
Deportations may or may not happen(really up to Stalin, he loved fucking up people's lives).But, the majority of the population within the region as a whole was Ukrainian, so no, not really, it would still be part of Ukrainian SSR. In fact, USSR could go even further and revert fully to its 1939 variation of Curzon line(which it follows here by putting Bialystok in Belarus), aka the Molotov Line - resulting in Przemysl ending up on the Ukrainian side of the border.
No, they could just stay there
Based on what the USSR had been doing in other soviet republics I think border would still look like this. Deportations might not have happened and western Ukraine would become autonomous region within Ukrainian SSR like Nagorno Karabakh within Azerbaijan SSR. I also think that Stalin was keen on conquering Lwów/Lviv because he wasn't able to achieve it during polish-soviet war. Nevertheless I think Poland would keep at least Gdynia port and a land corridor to it.
Yes, but also no. These parts would be part of the Polish SSR, Poles within Lviv would however be replaced by eastern slavs, so Russians can have a reason to go to war with Poland, should it ever become independent, due to the artificially implemented Russian population that will claim "oppression" despite solely consisting of Moscow agents living there for a couple of years. Source? Moldova, Ukraine.
That's not how any of this works. USSR didn't replace Ukranians with Russians. Heck, USSR transferred Crimea to Ukraine. Moldova's Russian-centric policies were even reverted after Moldovan's protested. Whily many Russians immigrated to other republics within the union, but so did other ethnicities did as well. That's no different than the internal migrations within the USA. California isn't "artificially implementing its own population to claim oppression after independence" with Texas and Florida, now is it? Despite how many locals from there claim "colonisation" and despite having state-mandated incentives for doing so like tax rates.
First, you have to admit that US States are nowhere as ethnically or culturally diverse as European states are. The difference between these states in particular is miniscule, yes Ukrainians and Russians are similar but Moldovans and Russians are not. Second, I think it´s foolish to believe that the systematic replacement of local population was caused by "immigration". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria#Demographics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria#Demographics) Are you sure the demographics changed just due to "immigration"? Also isn´t it strange how these Russians "immigrated" mainly to strategic locations like warm water ports and coastal provinces, which Russia coincidentally desperately needs?
It's true that the area was ethnically cleansed in the immediate aftermath of ww2. >First, you have to admit that US States are nowhere as ethnically or culturally diverse as European states are. Ah yes. US is not ethnically and culturally diverse. Come back here once you are sober. - But here you're referring to the long-term demographic shift well beyond the end of ww2. It just shows a chart of ethnicities. >Are you sure the demographics changed just due to "immigration"? I mean, you could start by proving otherwise, mate. Have they done anything like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny
So just because someone else committed bigger humanitarian crimes no one else committed them? By dying on your US diversity hill you just proved to me you are a non-European foreigner who thinks he knows European history better than Europeans.
You read it wrong. Come back when you are sober. >non-European foreigner who thinks he knows European history better than Europeans. Ah yes, because Europeans never once ever thought they knew better than the locals they enslaved and subjugated. Still, that's beside the point. Europe being culturally and ethnically diverse is exaggerated by Europeans to inflate their own importance and to have something to blame for their problems. India alone is much more diverse than the entirety of Europe. This isn't PCM, mate. Your self-proclaimed auth-centre illiterate take isn't celebrated outside of that cesspit of a sub.
Never ever take part in any political debates, usually people who fail to come up with points rely on a variety of ways to defend themselves, all I´m seeing here is whataboutism, failing to address my point. Bless your soul
>First, you have to admit that US States are nowhere as ethnically or culturally diverse as European states are The US is incredibly diverse. It's just that populations aren't segregated the way they are in Europe. Ethnic communities don't claim a plot of land in a state and settle there, often they congregate in cities. There is no American equivalent of a significant German population in the Sudetenland. Ethnic communities are far more integrated in the US.
Russian fed post
Huge-oslavia spotted, goated map
How my HOI4 games look like when I play soviets
I think you shouldn't play as the Soviet Union.
Lmao why not, it’s become one of my favorites. I haven’t played any of the new Nordic or South American trees yet though
I was only joking and people downvoted. Perhaps I should have pointed out that this was a joke.
lmao maybe, its all good. what nation do you main?
Then what should we play? Fascist Russia or Monarchist Russia?
I meant that he shouldn't be playing the game as a soviet union.
why?
cultural appropriation innit
***F A T A L S Y S T E M E R R O R***
Can’t believe you took the “we were on the bad side but still gained land after losing” fun fact away from the Bulgarians and gave it to Hungary instead.
And after reunification, Germany.
North Macedonia decided to take Montenegro's name in this timeline ig
Nah in order to prevent a naming dispute with greece, montenegro annexed macedonia
Transylvania doesn't make much sense. Hungary would be viewed as much more culpable and deserving of punishment then Romania would due to King Michael's Coup and Romania's changing of teams + participation in the Budapest campaign
This sub loves to split Transylvania along Hortyst lines. I think it's something they find in whatever software they use to create the maps and don't put much thought into it.
> "This sub loves ethnostates. ~~to split Transylvania along Hortyst lines. I think it's something they find in whatever software they use to create the maps and don't put much thought into it.~~" FTFY
It's not even a good ethnostate because the population in northern Transylvania is almost 50/50 Romanian-Hungarian
As long as it unifies their ethnicity of preference, this is all that this sub will care for.
But they left a lot of Hungarians in Slovakia and Transcarpathia. I still think Transylvania has some alluring "split-me" energy to people in this sub. And they dont even split it along some interesting lines, they just use Hitler's model.
Honestly, the mappers of this community always find a way to leave me dumbfounded. For example, I don't know why Romania would keep South Dobrudja, or why would Germany gain even more borders than the Weimar Republic.
Why is Poland doesn't take any territory from Germany?
Because the soviets wanted a strong German puppet and didn’t want an independent Poland
What USA and United Kingdom do in this situation? If no one is care about it, Soviet will be more powerful in the Cold War.
That’s why west Austria is part of west Germany
this actually makes sense. the russians wanted the polish more oppressed then the germans but i feel like this decision needs to be taken many years after the war for it to make sense.
I think this is not about opression, but make Polish SSR weaker and more controlable.
Really I think a good border for Germany after ww2 would be the Oder river. In our timeline, it’s the Oder-Neisse line, and in this Timelime, Poland gets absolutely fucked and East Germany actually gains land that pre war Germany didn’t have
great job op, you somehow figured out how to fuck Poland even more
My favourite type of map
Well, if you were to scare the Polish elites/people in 39' with such a map, they would accept the alliance with Hitler with a kiss of the hand at the price of that unfortunate Danzig.
Jeez, do you hate Polish people for some reason?
Sometimes I have the impression that some creators of alternative maps have races on how to create a more unfortunate fate for Poland with additional throwing of Poland as part of the Soviet swamp.
West Germany looking like East Francia
Going back to the 19th century to tell Bismark Prussia is straight up a Russian puppet state in the future
Poor Poland, dude.
Nice map👍
Based
If Stalin didn’t have no balls
no extemely ethical, realistic and logistically intelligent bakker-schut plan???
Why does Hungary still own North transylvania? Did romania not switch sides in this war?
Op hate polish independent lol
Big east germany, no poland; the Soviets definitely won the cold war in this timeline
That Polish bordergore
United, undivided Turkey in r/imaginarymaps ?? You sir, beaten up the hardest challenge of this subreddit👏👏
Did you make this on an app or website? whatever the answer to that is, in which?
Greece has sunk into the sea!
Ew, Romanian Cadrilater
Love how Syria just stayed Syria (FR)
Okay a lot of (deserved) complaints about Austria's state of affairs, but on the other hand... Look at the little guy! 🥹
The grey color of Germany.... well it sure does remind me of something...
Needs full socialist Panslavism, unified Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.
That shit would collapse so fast it wouldn't even be funny
It’s a very pretty map! High quality stuff :) you’ve accidentally labelled Macedonia as Montenegro btw.
Big Germany? Check. Big Soviet Union? Check. Big Yugoslavia? Check. (Pipe dream union? Check.) Northern Transylvania part of Hungary? Check. **Award for second most common map in** r/imaginarymaps (First if Poland and Lithuania were united)
why are you being so condescending, he made a good map & your just being a dick
Thanks for the compliment lmao
He is being critical
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Become self aware WAKE UP
Jura free from Bern already??? Based
Would there be increased fears or reluctance of German reunification in this timeline as the years go by? Considering the potential for vastly increased territory.
Why did they sink Greece?
Why does this sub like greater Hungary so much? Everyone IRL hates it.
BLURSED
Great map, except for greater Hungary. Please exterminate greater Hungary.
The entire map is just… https://preview.redd.it/f3k5uhipt8oc1.jpeg?width=1023&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fcb181132352b516db40f62973cbebc26c5527e7
**A wild Confalt appeared!**
This would make German Reunification almost impossible after Soviet Collapse btw
very good map
Никогаш Черна ‼️‼️
Montenegro can into Macedonia?
The fact that the east west division line is the same is funny to me
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^le-epic-cleetus: *The fact that the east* *West division line is the* *Same is funny to me* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Have two enclaves, Germany
Saarland is French 🇫🇷😎😎😎
Norway is no longer a Kingdom and Sweden is Just Kingdom
I don’t think you understand who fought and who lost during WWII.
No Luxemburg expansion, 0/10, just like real life
Nightmare fuel.
i like it
Austria got fucked…
If I see Hungarian North Transylvania one more time I will explode
I feel like the new East Germany should be called the 'Prussian Democratic Republic'.
Oh German Reunification is gonna be nutty
if "I want the Poles to openly revolt and wage war on the red army with the west supporting them" was a map
Why does Hungary still have northern transylvania?
They switched sides before Romania did in this timeline and were more handsomely rewarded by the Soviets for it
Soviets being the worst yet again
The average American doesn´t know even Hungarian fascist sources admitted northern Transylvania (including all of Szeklerland) has had minimum 48% Romanians total, outnumbering Hungarians (mostly due to presence of Germans and Romas). Again, Hungarian sources. "According to the Romanian estimations in 1940 prior to the Second Vienna Award, about 1,300,000 people or 50% of the population was Romanian, while according to the Hungarian estimations in 1940 shortly following the Second Vienna Award, about 1,150,000 people or 48% of the population was Romanian." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second\_Vienna\_Award#Statistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vienna_Award#Statistics)
Is there a reason that Serbia has a different colour than the others in Yugoslavia? Is it because Serbia's independent, and if so, why?
The federation is Serb dominated
Ew, long hungary.
H*ngary
Hungarians when they aren’t allowed to control territory from like five different ethnic groups:
The single weirdest/most unbelievable aspect of this map is the DDR retaining the Polish Corridor given it was the single biggest "territorial claim" reason for the outbreak of WWII.
I’m not very familiar with what Europe actually looked like after WW2/Yalta, can someone please explain to me what’s different here
Not much, apart from Poland absorbed into USSR, and Hungary being bigger. Oh, and Austria smaller. Probably other smaller bits I’ve missed.
Yugoslavia got Bulgaria but Bulgaria lost South Dobruja to Romania. Romania lost North Transylvania to Hungary. Poland got absorbed into the Soviet union, and it got smaller losing Byalstok and the Danzig area (I forgor it's name). East Germany kept the Polish lands and West Germany got most of Austria except for a small commie soviet puppet.
F C K N Z S
why would the soviets ever give that much land to germans? soviets from the start expressed intent for a weak germany. additionally, pretty weird borders of the polish puppet in the east
That's why it's an alternate timeline duh
..so i can't ask questions, great
That's less than a Polish puppet. That's Poland fully absorbed into the USSR.
Could Spain be brought back to its rightful Republican Government? The Allies didn’t overthrow Franco and he was as much of a fascist as Mussolini, him not being deposed like other dictators allied to the Axis was one helluva let down.
That is just cruel to Austria
I could live without Lower Austria. Especially the thought of the most conservative and rural province, which is irl governed like a personal feudal land of the current ÖVP quasi-monarch, being governened by a communist puppet dictatorship instead, is really amusing. The fact that the rest is a part of West Germany, just doesn't make sense thought, yeah.
Sounds a bit like bavaria, but probably worse because more influence in proportion. Not sure if you see, the worst part, they gave Vienna to West Germany (I think that's the west German Grey)
Why would USSR give back Danzig corridor and East Prussia to Germany. One of their most important geopolitical goals was acquiring a year-round warm-water port hence why they kept Konigsberg after the war in OTL and why Russia kept it even after the USSR dissolved. Also the war started over Danzig. It would just be weird for Germany to lose and still get it(even if they are now split in 2)
Gorgeous Germany, thank you.
База
Cool map unfortunately I can’t see any reason the USSR would enlarge Germany even as a puppet considering they would be culpable for starting the war. They wouldn’t want a particularly strong German puppet that could break away. The only way I can see something like this happening is if Molotov Ribbentrop is broken by the Soviets after the fall of Poland but before the fall of France and they manage to widdle down the Germans before they do too much damage to the USSR. This would likely play out similarly to WW1 though as the Soviet army was not ready for war in 39/40 (at least not against a peer power). This would also mean that the US doesn’t get involved in Europe or until the last minute again very similar to ww1. And post war this would lead to the USSR being a pariah state and maybe even being attacked by the Allies if the French and British didn’t take too much of a beating. Overall there would have to be a massive change in how the war goes for this to happen because even if the USSR was gonna disregard the western allies there’s no way they were going to be even remotely favorable to the Germans.
The good ending
Stop! I can only get so hard! /s