One of the mainstays of speculative history (together with “What if the South had won the US Civil War?”) is: What would the world have looked like if the Nazis had won the Second World War? And yet I’ve never seen a map showing what the Nazis’ post-war plans (for Europe of for the world) were, neither from their own files or reconstructed by war historians.
Which is very strange, considering that the Second World War is one of the most studied conflicts in world history. Maybe that’s because the Nazis didn’t have any concrete plans for after their victory – not because they didn’t believe in it themselves, but because of the chaotic nature of Nazi governance. The institutional overlap, competition and resulting chaos in the Third Reich is a well-established historical fact that contradicts the traditional notion of Germans as careful and thorough planners and which may well have prevented a German victory.
How the world would have looked like if such a victory had occurred, is a question that has been answered often in fiction, for example in the (passable) Robert Harris novel ‘Fatherland’ and the (brilliant) Philip K. Dick book ‘The Man in the High Castle’. Harris’ book includes a map, of a 1960s Europe dominated by Germany. This Nazi state, greatly expanded towards the East, doesn’t include Alsace-Lorraine. This rather puts a dent in the map’s credibility: it’s quite unthinkable that a victorious Nazi state would not annex these territories on the Rhine’s left bank, for so long disputed between France and Germany. Dick’s book, which focuses on the Japan-dominated West Coast of the (former) USA, sadly isn’t illustrated with a map. Not my copy at least.
This map does give what seems to be a well-considered vision of a Europe-wide Nazi state as it might have emerged after a German victory. German supremacy is ‘concealed’ by the construct of Neuropa (’New Europe’), a sort of evil twin of the European Union in this universe.
• Linchpin of Neuropa is the Greater German Empire (Grossdeutsches Reich), consisting of Germany in its 1937 borders, plus Alsace-Lorraine (from France), the entire Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Belgian German-speaking area of Eupen-Malmédy (from Belgium), all of Austria (Ostmark in Nazi parlance), a large part of present-day Slovenia, the Sudeten areas of former Czechoslovakia, and large parts of pre-war Poland.
• Some areas are not part of the Reich, but nonetheless under direct ‘Protectorate’: Bohemia-Moravia and the Polish ‘General-Gouvernement’.
• So far, nothing deviates from the situation as it was at the height of Nazi power in Europe. Different are two Reich exclaves in the East, implying Germany won the war with Soviet Russia: Gotenland (on the Krim peninsula) and St Petersburg.
• Presumably outside the Reich in a technical sense, but still administered civilly by the NSDAP (Hitler’s National Socialist party) are large areas in the East: Estonia and Latvia, both enlarged by annexing parts of Russia, Lithuania, and Belarus.
• There are also three autonomous NSDAP areas in the west: the Netherlands, Flanders and Wallonia (those two successor-states to Belgium also gaining territory, in this case to the detriment of France).
• So far the areas under direct German control (either under the Reich or under the Party). Next in the map legend are other European states, major allies of the Nazis and “instigators of the New European Union”: Greater Finland (almost doubling in size by grabbing parts of Norway and Russia) and the Italian Social Republic, covering just the northern half of Italy but gaining the Savoy and Nice areas of France and the environs of Istria from Slovenia.
• This is where the map’s colour scheme gets a bit confusing: the states signing up to the European Declaration in 1946 and later are indicated in one of several shades of brown and green used in the legend. To the best of my visual abilities, the 1946 ones are: Norway, Denmark, France, Slovakia, (Greater) Hungary, (Greater) Croatia, (Greater) Romania and (Greater) Bulgaria – those last four Balkan states enlarged at the expense their neighbours (sometimes including each other).
• A second wave of member states signing the European Declaration in 1951 are (again, as far as I can see): Spain (also holding on to its possessions in Morocco), (Little) Serbia, Greece (losing part of Macedonia to Bulgaria and also some territory to Albania, but retaining an enclave at the Turkish border) and Ukraine, which, having lost some land to Romania and the General-Gouvernement, is extended eastward all the way to Saratov.
• Later in the 1950s, Albania (enlarged also with a good part of Kosovo) joins the European Declaration.
• A third wave of Neuropa members joins in the 1960s: Portugal, Montenegro, and several formerly Soviet areas in or near the Caucasus: Kuban, Kalmykia, Georgia (enlarged with North Ossetia), Armenia and Azerbaijan.
• In the 1970s, three new states join: Dagestan in the Caucasus, and Udmurtia and Volga-Tatarstan further north.
• Incorporated in Neuropa, but without voting rights are the areas of Moskova and an area in the Caucasus, somewhat conforming to where Chechnya is now (maybe corresponding with the former, larger Soviet autonomous area of Chechnya-Ingushetia).
This map was sent to me by Bruno De Cordier and is taken here from the Finnish site valtakunta.eu, dedicated to illustrating the parallel universe in which the Nazis have won the war.
Unfortunately mainly in Finnish, it’s impossible (for a non-Finnophone like me, anyway) to determine which is the POD (point of divergence) of this timeline: what was the turning point allowing the Nazis to win the war?


Colin McEvedy’s Penguin Atlas of Recent History shows German civil administrative divisions during WW2. They are similar to what is seen on this map. Unfortunately, I do not have it handy.
Comment by Leo Petr — October 17, 2007 @ 1:39 am
The site does have a summary in English, which states that there is no specific POD, but imagines a world where, in short, Hitler and his government were smarter and steadier.
Comment by Minivet — October 17, 2007 @ 2:14 am
Actually, several maps exist. The Nazis left extensive plans for the postwar-period, right down to domestic architecture, so alternate historians have found it rather easy to map them. An excellent portrayal, map included, is Robert Harris’s Fatherland. If you want something a little more scholarly, check out the forum at alternatehistory.com. We have an entire thread devoted to Nazi victory maps.
As for the map itself, it’s a pretty good interpretation, though I doubt the Nazis would allow as many states in Eastern Europe to be independent.
Comment by Brad — October 17, 2007 @ 2:21 am
Presumably there was a negotiated peace in WWII — Britain is shaded grey, which isn’t in the key and so would seem to be independent. Same for South Italy and the remnants of the USSR (SSSR). I’d guess that the German offensives in Russia in 1941 and 1942 were much more successful (capturing Moscow and Stalingrad — Zarizyn on this map), but the Nazis didn’t have the resources to finish the job, and got bogged down. The Western Allies land in Italy, Mussolini is deposed (and reinstated by the Nazis in the Italian Social Republic, as per our timeline), but the Germans hold them north of Rome, and D-Day is a failure (or perhaps never happened). So after that, maybe after a year or so of stalemate, the Allies give up trying to win back Europe, and recognise the German changes to the map of Europe …
Comment by Brett Holman — October 17, 2007 @ 2:55 am
I thought Hitler had planned to turn Moscow into a lake. Maybe, this was his ideao only by the end of WW2, when Soviet troops were appraching Berlin.
Comment by Stefan — October 17, 2007 @ 5:32 am
There are some fairly obvious errors in this map which make me doubt the research of whoever put it together.
Notably, Germany annexed Czechia before the war began, and Libya was a colonial possession of Italy from 1911. For that matter, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco would have been administered either directly by the Germans, or through their Vichy puppets.
Comment by Loki — October 17, 2007 @ 7:01 am
@Loki: I don’t think that whoever created the map was interested in the (African) colonies. The only exception show is the northern coast of Morocco, but keep in mind that even today Ceuta and Melilla are part of the Spanish kingdom: here there is just an enlargement of the enclaves to get a continuous strip of land.
It’s stranger that the author chose to left Italy divided and Albania (annexed in 1939) independent, but with Dodecanesus given to Northern Italy.
Comment by .mau. — October 17, 2007 @ 7:36 am
@Loki: I don’t think that whoever created the map was interested in the (African) colonies. The only exception show is the northern coast of Morocco, but keep in mind that even today Ceuta and Melilla are part of the Spanish kingdom: here there is just an enlargement of the enclaves to get a continuous strip of land.
It’s stranger that the author chose to left Italy divided and Albania (annexed in 1939) independent, but with Dodecanesus given to Northern Italy.
Comment by .mau. — October 17, 2007 @ 7:38 am
There´s a book called Virtual History (I can´t remember the title exactly, but its author is Nigel Townsend). It´s really good. The author was my teacher at college in Spain and recommended us the book. The hipotetic situation if nazis would have won the II war isn´t the one. There´s other really interesting stories
Comment by Mirarrosa — October 17, 2007 @ 8:16 am
Interesting map. However, I don’t think the idea of a divided Italy is very plausible, and I don’t understand why Finland has gained so much on Norway. The Norwegians were a favorite people of the Nazis, who saw them as a kind of proto-germannic people. Also, Norway was captured fairly early in the war.Because of this, I would not think a victorious Nazi-germany would allow Finland to capture Norwegian territory.
I also cannot quite believe that Sweden has managed to stay neutral in this scenario.Pressed by Nazi states from both sides, how could they?
Comment by sungame — October 17, 2007 @ 8:25 am
i like the idea..it means gerry kick an american but…
Comment by alaslangit — October 17, 2007 @ 8:32 am
A novel called Making History by Stephen Fry covers the hypothetical question. He includes the effect of a Nazi win has over the USA too.
Comment by James — October 17, 2007 @ 8:40 am
It’s not hard to understand most of these choices.
As I already pointed out, Italy being partitioned points to a stalemate and negotiated peace after 1944. The Italian Social Republic really existed, and was created after the Allied invasion of Italy, so obviously that also happened in this timeline. Italy’s African colonies had already been captured by the Allies by that time, so that’s why it doesn’t have those any more. The Dodecanese Islands were not liberated until the end of the war, so that’s why they are still Italian here. Albania, I don’t know about that one. And I agree that Sweden (and Switzerland, not so much Ireland, also marked in white) would have a hard time keeping out of the New Order altogether.
As for Finland, sure the Germans like their fellow Nordics, but presumably they liked countries who actually fought on their side more than they liked countries who fought against them! But since it’s from a Finnish website, a bit of wishful thinking might come into it too.
@9: I think the author was Niall Ferguson?
Comment by Brett Holman — October 17, 2007 @ 8:56 am
Ireland is in white there, but I wonder would we the Irish have joined an alternate European Union. I think we would have given the right circumstances.
Comment by Donncha — October 17, 2007 @ 9:01 am
[...] 186 – <b>Europe</b>, If the Nazis Had Won [...]
Pingback by completesq » Blog Archive » Late breaking news — October 17, 2007 @ 9:19 am
[...] 186 – <b>Europe</b>, If the Nazis Had Won [...]
Pingback by completeab » Blog Archive » Late breaking news — October 17, 2007 @ 9:26 am
@Brett: in 1944 Dodecanese Islands (like Süd-Tirol, which is the part of Italy with German-speaking people) were under direct Germany domain, however; so it made sense that they remained in Great Germany after the end of the War.
Comment by .mau. — October 17, 2007 @ 9:32 am
Yes, the Germans did control them at the end of our WWII, because they moved in when the Italians collapsed. But they are the same colour as the Italian Social Republic on this map so I assume Germany returned them to Mussolini at some point (in the alternate history!)
Ooh, more maps linked from here.
Comment by Brett Holman — October 17, 2007 @ 9:56 am
[...] 186 – <b>Europe</b>, If the Nazis Had Won [...]
Pingback by centerwinks » Blog Archive » Latest news — October 17, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Thank you for your interest in my maps! I’ll try to answer quickly to few of your questions.
History of Albania during the WWII is a murky one. It regained independence in 1943, with a nationalist goverement who got backing from Berlin, but they intended to declare neutrality as soon as possible – and still hold on areas annexed to Albania during Italian rule, mainly Kosovo. Albania also tried to hold on a puppet state of “Principality of Pindos”, established in 1941 to mountainous Greek areas by aromanian minority.
Norwegians were not very well liked by German occupation goverment. Quisling was a burden; they never wanted him to grab power in Norway, because it alienated norwegian people from Germany. Quisling dreamed of a “Greater Norway”, with Kola peninsula added, but he was quickly rebuffed from Berlin. in 1942, Hitler offered all kinds of amenities to Finland, because of its importance in the northern front. He pledged Finland the right to annex Eastern Karelia and Kola peninsula, and even more, just to keep the Finnish army fighting. Northern Norway (Ruija) is inhabited by finnish-speaking people, and the inclusion of these areas to “Greater Finland” was planned in Helsinki.
Comment by Sampsa Rydman — October 17, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
More my maps here:
http://www.valtakunta.eu/historia/rauha1943.html
Greater Germany, 1984:
http://www.valtakunta.eu/politiikka/newgermany.jpg
Comment by Sampsa Rydman — October 17, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
I love the maps on your site, Sampsa. I’d nitpick over the Nazis failure to annex Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium, as well as large parts of western Ukraine, but that aside, great work. You should translate the text into English, I’d love to read it (my Finnish begins with ‘Paiva!’ and ends with ‘Kiitos’, sadly).
Comment by Paul — October 17, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
Just wanted to add my compliments for the excellent work on the website & maps! I agree with Paul, please translate the rest if you can!
Comment by tps — October 17, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
[...] another Strange Map for you–this one an imagining of what Europe would have looked like if Germany had won the [...]
Pingback by Historical Methods » Blog Archive » If The War Had Turned Out Differently — October 17, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
[...] another Strange Map for you–this one an imagining of what Europe would have looked like if Germany had won the [...]
Pingback by Nationalism in Eastern Europe » Blog Archive » If The War Had Turned Out Differently — October 17, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
[...] another Strange Map for you–this one an imagining of what Europe would have looked like if Germany had won the [...]
Pingback by East European Nationalism and Communism » Blog Archive » If The War Had Turned Out Differently — October 17, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
Even if the Nazis had won the circle would have in such a way as to be at a point it presently is,what happed if China and Russia became communist and completely red at that.arn’t these counties now pursueing capitalism in its worse form than others,any thing unnatural would give way to the natural thing eventually.
Comment by krsnakhandelwal — October 17, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
[...] 186 – <b>Europe</b>, If the Nazis Had Won [...]
Pingback by channelqz » Blog Archive » Late breaking news — October 17, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
About Alsace (I live there) : Germans DID annex Alsace-Lorraine as soon as France was defeated. Young men for m Alsace-Lorraine were forced to fight in the Wehrmacht… So Harris’ book is false.
BTW, I love this site.
Comment by Krysztof von Murphy — October 17, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
[...] 186 – <b>Europe</b>, If the Nazis Had Won [...]
Pingback by daquicker » Blog Archive » Late breaking news — October 17, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
there is an ongoing (inofficial?) translation project at http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=263106
Comment by Vaang — October 18, 2007 @ 12:11 am
Requires no Manhattan Project at minimum – since the division of Italy indicates that the US is in the war, Germany must 1. crush the USSR (unlikely) 2. successfully resist a US landing on the continent (unlikely even if the USSR is out of the fight, impossible otherwise) and 3. avoid getting nuked into rubble.
Nice map, but I think “Germanics” such as the Dutch are likely to be incorporated directly into the Reich – unless Hitler dies soon after war’s end and his successor has rather different ideas re who qualifies as “German” (along with rather different ideas re the Slavs, which at the best would be a slave race in German-settled Ukraine, Poland – there would be no such thing as a Ukranian state.)
Bruce
Comment by B Munro — October 18, 2007 @ 2:18 am
Well, yes, B Munro, the whole concept of Germany winning the war after invading the USSR seems rather unlikely.
But if you are willing to accept German victory as a theoretical experiment, the map seems rather plausible. However, you might be right about the racial issues concerning “slavic” countries like Ukraine and Poland.
On the other hand, the Nazi leaders were quite divided on racial ideology. Sure, they all played along with Hitler’s ideas, but while the racial theories were ideologically motivated for some, they were just a tool for others. So if the least racist (if you can actually write that about Nazis) factions seized power, presumably after Hitler’s death, the map, once again, seems more plausible.
Comment by sungame — October 18, 2007 @ 6:59 am
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that Italy be partitioned. After all, it was only unified less than a hundred years previously. And if the Lega Nord got their way, it would be divided so those “filthy, lazy” southerners stopped being such a drain on the economy (their words, not mine).
Btw, I’m reading the Robert Harris book at the moment and it’s a really good, plausible read. I don’t think we should discount it because of one minor piece of cartography that is totally unrelated to the story.
Comment by jonmorris — October 18, 2007 @ 11:18 am
I’m quite sure that the (unattributed) source of this map Joaquín de Salas: See “LIVING SPACE (”LEBENSRAUM”): Germany and Nationalist Europe 1939-1942 (3)” at http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/index.htm and especially http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/fascist.htm
Comment by António Martins-Tuválkin — October 18, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
“Udmurtia” and “Volga-Tataria” were moved some 1000 km SW of where they actually exist. Granted that such moves were not unheard of even *here* (cp. Jewish homeland at the lower Amur!), and surely Tatars are/were spread in an area much wider than current Tatarstan, but is looks a bit far-fechted.
I’m also surprised that the Saratov area wasn’t made a Reich enclave: even the Soviet recognized the local German majority.
Comment by António Martins-Tuválkin — October 18, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
Jonmorris: Italy has been devided in the past, yes, and it might be again, but I doubt that the Nazis would be content with controlling half of it.
Comment by sungame — October 18, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
“But if you are willing to accept German victory as a theoretical experiment…”
Well, yes, but arguing about these things is half the fun for those of us into Alternate History.
Bruce
Comment by B Munro — October 18, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
@33, 37:
But it’s not a German victory. It’s a stalemate. That’s why it’s not a matter of the Nazis (or the Allies) allowing Italy to be partitioned: it was the best either side could achieve.
@35:
Well spotted, I think you’re right.
Comment by Brett Holman — October 19, 2007 @ 5:39 am
[...] Vairāk variet uzzināt šeit! [...]
Pingback by kaupeens.com » Eiropas karte, ja nacistu būtu uzvarējuši — October 19, 2007 @ 6:35 am
There are lots of thing that led to Germany’s defeat in WWII. Among the things under their control: 1) They started out without any long range, 4 engine heavy bombers. You cant pound an enemy in Russia or across the channel into chunky salsa without a way to get there. 2) Hitler kept making stupid decisions instead of letting the generals who knew better do it. They’ll land at Calais! Strap bombs on the jet fighter! Produce a few wonder weapons instead of a bunch of weapons that were good enough to get the job done. Hitler was great at rallying the troops but should have kept his mouth shut when the grownup generals were making plans. 3) Who in the hell attacks Great Britain and Russia AT THE SAME TIME? Talk about compensating! 4) Lack of a powerful naval fleet. Battleships are ok but to project power and, say, sink supply ships in the atlantic, you need carriers and planes. U-boats are nice but they cant project power. Germany was doomed from the start… thank god.
Comment by Hannover Fisk — October 19, 2007 @ 6:54 am
figli di….
Comment by riccardo — October 19, 2007 @ 7:18 am
[...] (for Europe of for the world) were, neither from their own files or reconstructed by war historians.read more | digg [...]
Pingback by travel blog » Blog Archive » Map of Europe, If the Nazis Had Won — October 19, 2007 @ 8:07 am
Funny! Israel is on the map and the wrong shape!
Comment by Ray — October 19, 2007 @ 8:49 am
Not so funny. “Israel” is the shape of the Palestine Mandate. Without a massive influx of Ashkenazi from post-war Europe, the 1949 war of independence and subsequent partition never occurs.
Comment by Carl — October 19, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Excuse me, you forgot my country, Iceland… which is very much a part of Europe.
Comment by Andri — October 19, 2007 @ 10:31 am
I think any lasting cease fire negotiations between the British and the Germans would have included the reunification of Ireland. Ireland had been a neutral country during the war. The Germans had supplied the IRA with arms. What better way for the Germans to humiliate the British than to strip away Northern Ireland. Perhaps in return Ireland would allow the Germans to stage forces for an invasion of Britain. It is much easier invading across the Irsh Sea than across the Channel.
Comment by Sean — October 19, 2007 @ 11:53 am
Europe, If the Nazis Had Won
This story has been submitted to Stirrdup. Your support can help it become hot.
Trackback by Support this story on Stirrdup — October 19, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
[...] Degrees: the ones that don’t make sense via Digg New Star Trek; Sylar = Spock? via Digg If the Nazis had won… via [...]
Pingback by I Am Gambit » Today’s Links — October 19, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
[...] 186 – Europe, If the Nazis Had Won « strange maps For all those who want to split Belgium (tags: history maps war) [...]
Pingback by links for 2007-10-19 at Past is prologue — October 19, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
Andri, Iceland appears to be covered by the legend.
Anyway, I doubt Iceland would be affected much by the Axis win. I think they sat WWII out.
Comment by Darrel Jones — October 19, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
Hi, just skimmed through this so I don’t know if it’s addressed yet, but I don’t see why you still have the Salo Republic separate from South Italy. It seems like the map has the Axis having a complete and total victory over the Allies. In that scenario, the ISR probably would not even have needed to be formed in the first place, and it certainly would not be kept separate from South Italy afterwards.
Comment by Eddie — October 20, 2007 @ 5:23 am
[...] Nazi Europe Tags: No Tags . [...]
Pingback by 6731 at Ochblog — October 20, 2007 @ 9:13 am
[...] o mapa da Europa caso os nazistas tivessem ganho a Segunda Grande Guerra [...]
Pingback by Mapas — October 20, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
10/20th/2007..SATURDAY.
DUMBKOFF!! You are Not Realizing that…”ECONOMICALLY” ( Due, in a Large Part to the D**N E.U.!)the Deutches’ REICH (0nly…in the 62nd/Yr. of the “1000 Yrs. “Der FUHRER” Predicted…They Had 10 Years of “REPERATIONS.. Under the Gen. GEO. MARSHALL Plan.. Then, Due to the Post-W.W.II Partitioning of the “BERLIN GARRISON”(PROCTORATE of BERLIN,GmbH.//Under the Bolshevicks &the VOPOSTOPOLISTS).
Most U.K, Citizens (Which..in fact,IS a Debtor Nation To Much of their COMMONWEALTH (3rd World),Nations)…ALSO Mentioning The “UNIFIED” German Fed. REP.! The “L” Pound/Sterling,is in an Ongoing Deficit to the German Currency,remembered as the”DEUTCH-MARK”.
Realizing this..Immutible FACT…The “FLAMIN’ HUNS” have Rebuilt ECONOMICALLY, Socially, Physically,Somewhat — ‘Emotionally’.. To A Greater ‘HIGHER-PLATEAU ‘ Than It WAS Under the FUHRHER. Sadly…If One Views The Stabilization of the DEUTCHE- MARK On the Consistant Clear Trading in the Commodity Of ‘GOLD”, in the Finantual Markets…GLOBALL Though,THE GERMANS Lost Prestige’ & ‘REAL-Estate’ During and After WWII They HAVE Gained BACK $$$ALL$$$ That WAS Lost — MONETARILY !! Thank You, and Good Night …From the “MUTUAL Radio Network”,LTD..
Comment by billperks5 — October 20, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
@ billperks5:
I think it’s spelled “Dummkopf”.
Comment by strangemaps — October 20, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
[...] – 186 – Europe, If the Nazis Had Won « strange maps (tags: maps [...]
Pingback by Del.icio.us op 21 October 2007 — Michel Vuijlsteke's Weblog — October 21, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
MAISON SUISSE PARAGUAY http://maisonsuisse.info
Comment by rotary4840 — October 21, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
http://rotaryasuncioncatedral.info ROTARY ASUNCION CATEDRAL LIDER DEL ROTARY DEL PARAGUAY
Comment by rotary4840 — October 21, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
It’s a major question, also, what Germany would’ve done with the German-speaking parts of Switzerland, which would’ve been completely surrounded. The 5 year mobilization alone during WW2 was enough to put a serious strain on the country’s human resources – if there had been an invasion, the plan was to retreat to the mountains, giving the plains to Germany.
Comment by Matt Tomich — October 21, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
Don’t trust Graham
Comment by maddad — October 21, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
Had Hitler’s Nazi’s won WWII, the European nations would have been subsumed in a non-democratic European state or union. We could have saved a lot of time and wasted lives…
Comment by Sven — October 22, 2007 @ 2:05 am
I guess I am not seeing that Finland has “so much” of Norway, when you look at modern maps and compare the territory, I mean.
Also, remember that Finland lost large chunks of Karelia during the war so this map just adds to what would *not* have been lost. Theoretically, I mean.
N.B. I am actually from Finland.
Comment by mr — October 22, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
[...] (for Europe of for the world) were, neither from their own files or reconstructed by war historians.read more | digg [...]
Pingback by top trends » Blog Archive » Map of Europe, If the Nazis Had Won — October 22, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
mr.October: No, Finland has not won very much of Norway in this scenario, and after other comments here, I have come to believe that it is entirely plausible that the Nazis would have rewarded them some territory. I know Finland lost large chunks of Karelen in the war in real life, but has that happened in this map? (I ask because I am not an expert on Karelen, and cannot see from this map whether that has happened in this scenario).
And in a scenario where Germany has won the war, wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that these parts would be ruled either directly by Germany, or by Finland?
Comment by sungame — October 23, 2007 @ 10:00 am
The scenario as pictured on this map and on Sampsa Rydman’s excellent site is a very nicely worked out thought experiment. Reality would be much harsher though. The Nazis saw the Fins as part of the “yellow hordes from the east” and therefore as an inferior race. The Nazi policy would be to contain and ultimately eradicate the Fins rather than to let them flourish. It would be more likely that in the end Finland would become settled with Swedes and Norwegians and the Fins would be forced into a “protectorate”.
I came across these maps for Nazi plans for Europe in German and English
Comment by Ratagosk — October 24, 2007 @ 1:19 am
[...] По мотивам Europe, If the Nazis Had Won [...]
Pingback by Прочитано.ру » Blog Archive » Как выглядела бы карта мира в случае победы фашистов — October 25, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Looking at Sampsa’s other maps (the links he posted here in the comments), it becomes obvious what the point of departure is. His map of 1941-42 shows that Operation Barbarossa succeeded in taking Moscow, but that Soviet forces are still around Kiev. Clearly, Hitler did not order Army Group Center south towards Kiev in July-Spetember 1941. Instead, it continued east towards Moscow and captured the city before winter.
Losing Moscow did not knock the Soviet Union out of the war, but it was a severe enough loss that the Germans were successful in 1942 in taking Stalingrad and the Caucasus.
The war in the west was unaffected. Rommel was still defeated at El Alamein, and Americans landed in North Africa in late 1942. The Brits and Yanks pushed Germans out of North Africa (explaining why the Nazis have no African lands on the map) and invade Italy in 1943.
The 1944-45 map still show the Allied invasion of France (Overlord and Dragoon) but do not show any light blue territory. It seems that the invasion failed. Presumably, at this time with the failure to liberate France and a weak USSR, the Allies made a negotiated peace that kept Allied gains (Southern Italy and Africa).
It’s a fairly plausible scenario, except that a Nazi capture of Moscow might have changed Western Allied strategy immensely. The Americans wanted to invade France, not North Africa, in 1942, but the British convinced the US otherwise. Instead, the Allies might have invaded France as early as 1942, but with no guarantee of victory.
The Nazis certainly won the war, but it was not a complete victory like some people are assuming here. The British Empire still exists, and the US still defeats Japan in the Pacific and is allied with Chiang Kai-Shek’s China. The Anglo-American alliance still appears to stand, and the German Reich is being diplomatically “normalized.” An awful result to be sure, but not complete world domination.
I don’t think there is much to argue about whether Greater Germany annexed this country or not. Denmark, Holland, etc. would all be lead by Nazi collaborators, and the “Nazi EU” would settle most questions in the favor of Germany anyway. Also, it is important to note that the countries in the East – Ukraine, Moscow, Kuban, etc. would not be Slavic controlled lands. They would have been settled by German pioneers to serve as overlords to serf Slavs. This is the Nazi’s Lebensraum.
Comment by Chris Durnell — October 25, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
[...] 186 – Europe, If the Nazis Had Won « strange maps [...]
Pingback by del.icio.us bookmarks for December 25th through October 25th | episcopophagous — October 26, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Mapa de la Europa actual, si los nazis hubiesen ganado la Segunda Guerra Mundial
Una de las principales cuestiones formuladas en historia especulativa es ¿Qué habría pasado si los nazis hubiesen ganado la Segunda Guerra Mundial? Aunque es un tema que ha sido discutido ampliamente, nunca había visto un mapa que reflejara como ha…
Trackback by meneame.net — October 26, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
http://500quejas.com
Comment by 500quejas.com — October 27, 2007 @ 9:40 am
Fortunately this is not the actual Europe’s map
http://www.juzamdjinn.blogspot.com
Comment by duhu — October 28, 2007 @ 10:00 am
[...] here for more This entry was posted on Sunday, October 28th, 2007 at 5:00 am and is filed under europe. [...]
Pingback by swiftda » Blog Archive » Comment on 186 - Europe, If the Nazis Had Won by duhu — October 28, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
well, accoring to my calculations.
this website gives out entirly WRONG information. I am a 3.29552713 mathimatical genius. don’t try to trick my again.
thanks,
steve urckel
Comment by fabio machinsolb — November 6, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
I actually seem a map of what the Nazis wanted to do with Europe. In this map Europe would be divided into racial/ethnic/linguistic/historic lines. For example, Galicia, Brittany, and the Basque countries would have their own government. Savoy would also be its own country. Italy would be split in two, and all ethic German areas would be incorporated into greater Germany.
If Hitler had been assassinated after France was occupied, it is plausible that the Germans would have kept Continental Europe in control. I just can’t believe their lack of long-distance bombers.
Comment by Paul — November 7, 2007 @ 4:22 am
[...] Map of Europe if Hitler had won [...]
Pingback by 18 November - WordPress PoliSci II « oldephartteintraining — November 18, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
[...] This map does give what seems to be a well-considered vision of a Europe-wide Nazi state as it might have emerged after a German victory. German supremacy is ‘concealed’ by the construct of Neuropa (’New Europe’), a sort of evil twin of the European Union in this universe. [...]
Pingback by Europe, If the Nazis Had Won at frybe.net — November 29, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
ΤΙ ΜΑΛΑΚΙΕΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΥΤΕΣ;
Comment by deon — December 19, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
[...] Mondo. Abbiamo la mappa di come sarebbe potuta essere l’Europa se avessero vinto in nazisti (qui), quella dei suffissi del web (qui) o ancora quella con il mondo invertito (qui) o quella con [...]
Pingback by Strange Maps, le mappe più strane « Surus — December 26, 2007 @ 5:04 am
And finally Antwerp will be the Capital of Flanders! :)
Comment by AntwerpForCapital — December 27, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Now there is an English version of the map and its explanation as well!
http://www.valtakunta.eu/blog/?p=21
Comment by taivaansusi — January 20, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
HISTORY SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by HEATHER — January 25, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
The Spain actually did hold the continous strip of land along the North Moroccan coast before and during the War so no expansion there.
Comment by Patrick — February 3, 2008 @ 1:47 am
One possibility would be that Germany would be the Dominant power in Europe after a peace deal with Britain and the USA. Thus the Cold war could still have been “fought” against Germany instead of Russia.
I do not see the War so much as one against facism. The Allies supported coups in several countries such as Amin in Uganda, and Pinochet in Chile where the previous leaders had socialist leanings. I do not find it impossible for Hitler to have fought with the British and French aginst Stalin.
The lands that would certainly be lost to Germany would be the “mandates” taken after WW1: Togo (Britain and France) Taningika (British) and Namibia from South Africa.
Comment by Patrick — February 3, 2008 @ 1:58 am
its really a strange map… It looks amazing! Thanks for working and sharing it..
Comment by navtej kohli — February 7, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
[...] constrangido porque alguém ia te dar mais um beijinho no rosto e você já tinha se afastado?) , mapa de como seria a Europa caso os nazistas tivessem ganhado a Segunda Guerra, mapa das regiões onde a internet é censurada, mapa dos times de baseball americanos, mapa de [...]
Pingback by Lápis Raro » Estranhas cartografias. — February 14, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
THIS SUCKSS
Comment by lal — April 7, 2008 @ 2:05 am
[...] Sur Strangemaps. [...]
Pingback by I like your style » Neuropa : if the nazis had won — April 16, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
There is a English version of the map here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=263106
Comment by fisk — April 18, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
Even if Hitler had defeated the soviet union, it is unlikely he could have made peace with the western alllies. Even if airpower from the germans had been diverted after defeating the Soviet Union to bomb Great Britain, the US large scale bombings on german cities, bases and supplies were crippling. A stalemate may have been recognised if the Germans aquired the a-bomb, and the allies were aware of this. A treaty may have been signed by the powers and Italy would of been divided as it is in the map, after the allies had landed there during the war, and would possibly still be stationed there, as detterents to any german expantion southwards towards north africa.
Comment by th83 — April 19, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
The Axis Powers planned to divide the USA and Canada into three slices. Their proposed map of the new Japanese, Italian and German Empires is found in most decent world atlases. I have yet to see it anywhere on the internet…
Comment by cousinkix1953 — April 29, 2008 @ 10:25 am
I found the current Führer, and I think I recognize him :)
http://www.valtakunta.eu/politiikka/ehrl.html
Comment by Johan — May 12, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
автор статьи – еврей?
Comment by L@meR — May 21, 2008 @ 11:13 am
[...] credit: Strange Maps. If you enjoy maps, I highly recommend a visit. Link leads to a post detailing the map above. [...]
Pingback by ~– › Balancing Acts: What Nazis, Communists, Americans, Iran and Roger Federer have in common — June 13, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
Probably several ways Hitler could have won WW2
1)He developed an A-bomb, at least by mid 1944, as the US were conducting the Normandy landings. he nukes New York and maybe one other major US city, the USA leaves the war.
2) Japan didn’t do Pearl harbour, at least not till Hitler had invaded the UK, and with them out of the way, succesfully occupied weatern Russia, hopefully for him the surrender of the UK wouldnt have brought the US into the war anyway.
3) The Luftwaffe didn’t bother with London but kept up smashing the RAF airfields, till the RAF couldn’t stop a Nazi invasion, as it lost the Battle of Britain.
4) A Jew in about 1960 invented a time machine, went back to 1920 and killed Hitler. Someone else with more military talent was then leader of an aggressive and resentful Germany as the 1930s recession bit, and this other leader was more successful in WW2.
Comment by Hillary Shaw — June 29, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Also 5) Hitler doesn’t persecute the Jews, from the 1930s on, meaning many don’t flee to the USA, taking their financial and technological expertise with them. Then Germany ahs more weaponry and raw materials and is stronger in 1939.
Comment by Hillary Shaw — June 29, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
If Hitler had not declared war on the USA following Pearl Harbour the help that the neutral USA was giving in the North Atlantic may not have remained possible as all effort would have been diverted to the Pacific.
As for the time machine hypothesis, see Stephen Fry’s novel “Making History” where Hitler is removed from history – and a rational leader takes his place.
Comment by Martin Watts — June 29, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
Some portions of this map a very naïve to say the least, and betray a lack of background knowledge. They show alleged postwar borders which are “snapshots” from the wartime, when many new borders were created all the time, but which usually had a highly provisional character.
One major flaw is Italy and South Tyrol. A divided Italy merely reflects the situation of 1943, with Mussolini overthrown, the South switching into the Allied camp, and Mussolini being reestablished in the Italian Socialist Republic of Salo.
But if Germany had won the war there would have been no reason whatsoever for a divided Italy; it would simply have become another satellite state (perhaps under Mussolini, perhaps not).
Moreover, a victorious Germany would of course have seized German South Tyrol. Hitler had renounced the South Tyrolean territory (a popular revisionist claim from the interwar period) because he considered this a necessary sacrifice in order to win Fascist Italy under Mussolini as an ally. The rationale behind the renunciation of South Tyrol had thus become redundant in 1943, with Mussolini disempowered and Italy having switched sides, which is why Germany de facto annexed South Tyrol as well as the Adriatic Littoral as immediate response to the Italian capitulation.
Comment by Thomas Grischany — July 30, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
[...] (for Europe of for the world) were, neither from their own files or reconstructed by war historians.read more | digg [...]
Pingback by Web for money blog » Map of Europe, If the Nazis Had Won — August 13, 2008 @ 10:53 am
thanks
Comment by hero — October 15, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
love is a gameble.
sex is a game.
boys do the fucking.
girls get the pain.
one night of pleasure.
nine months of pain.
three days in the hospital.
one baby to name.
Cherry Red Casino
Comment by Lohness — December 10, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
Although interesting, this map is not that great.
Lots of things wrong with it.
1. There is no way the Nazis would have left Sweden and Switzerland – both with people they considered essentially Aryan – out of the loop. The countries would have been occupied in event of a German victory in WW2. Netherlands was destined for incorporation in the Reich.
2. British Empire? No way would the UK have been left alone.
3. The Nazis did NOT have plans for independent states in most of the former Soviet Union. Even places with large populations like Ukraine were destined to become part of the German Empire, with the aim of eventual incorporation in the Reich.
4. It would have been interesting to reflect Himmler’s plans for a kind of restoration of Burgundy – I think in Alsace Lorraine – which would have become an SS fiefdom.
All of these things are easily understood if you read the history.
Comment by marisbo — December 27, 2008 @ 3:41 am
Many good comments. Some silly ones.
Some suggestions of my own for why the map is flawed – apart from the observation already made that it depends largely on the military situation of 1941.
Firstly, let’s look at the five main things the Nazis / Imperial Japanese could have done that would have won them WWII. All of them were mistakes which arose from the same ideology that determined their imperial agenda.
1. The Nazis did not reject “Jewish Physics” or at least, did not persecute the Jews. Had they embraced ‘Jewish Physics’ they would have developed their own atomic bomb! Horrifying thought.
2. The Nazis did not call off the invasion of Great Britain. Operation Sea Lion was stalled by the RAF (brave fellows!) but Hitler could have over-ruled the Luftwaffe’s Goering and dictated the invasion to begin. Without the USA to support her militarily Britain would have fallen – and all her empire with her.
3. The Nazis did not break the pact with the Soviet Union. Hitler’s decision to commence Barbarossa arose from his contempt for the so-called inferior Slavs and (ironically) his admiration for the so-called ‘Aryan’ British. Even then, Hitler delayed and delayed. The delays, and the eventual war in the eastern front, lost him the war.
4. The Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor. The logic of attacking the American fleet was even questioned by the Japanese leaders at the time. The Imperial Japanese Navy argued that it could, in one blow, knock out the Americans and thus accord them full control of the Pacific theatre unapposed for the foreseeable. They grossly underestimated the resolve of the American people. (Thank God!)
(5) Hitler did not declare war on the USA. Had he not done so, America might not have gone to war in the European theatre (although I doubt that).
These five mistakes were made primarily because the Nazis and Imperial Japanese were motivated by two main mistaken theories:
(1) Race Theory – the mistaken ideology that one race is superior to another.
(2) That Centralised Imperialism (Totalitarianism) is the most effective and efficient method of government. Need I say it is not?
Had Hitler won, all so-called “Nordic” and “Aryan” peoples would have been incorporated into a vastly-expanded Greater German Reich. this includes the Netherlands, Scandinavia and (possibly) the Po region of northern Italy. Those peoples who were not designated as such (Eg: Hungarians, Bulgarians) would have been subjugated or tolerated as federati, in much the same way as Ancient Rome did. All these regions would have been governed through puppet regimes similar to Vichy France.
All of Africa, the Middle East and the Western half of Asia would have fallen under Nazi rule. The Soviet Union would have been decimated into ‘lebensraum’ administrative zones and subjugated areas. Genocides of ‘non-Aryan’ peoples in these regions would have been on a scale that would make Genghis Khan look like a girl in kindergarten.
In the Pacific theatre of pre December 1941, a deal would’ve been carved out with who was still largely non-interventionalist and pacifist at that time.
Japan would have taken all of Eastern Asia (possibly including British India – although I think the Nazis would have taken that) and the Western Pacific, with Midway being the ‘border’, so to speak.
A Totalitarian empire world would be an absolute nightmare! It would be all the evils of every Fascist regime ever known, on a global scale. Anyone whoever makes any kind of ‘positive’ apologia for such a world is working from facts utterly counter to reality.
We can only be grateful that the map above will be only a hypothetical talking point.
Comment by MarkS — January 10, 2009 @ 2:26 am
MarkS –
Yes, hypothetical but interesting nonetheless.
I agree with most of what you say.
Had the Japanese broken through I think they would have been able to take India, at least as a puppet regime. The Germans would have had their hands full, engorged with the Western half of the Soviet Union.
One strange aspect of Hitler’s bonkers’ theories was that he wanted to stop at the Urals and keep a permanent semi-war going with the Russians in Siberia – so as to keep young German men tough.
A rather dangerous ploy one would think but I guess that would create a buffer between Germany and Japan in central Asia. But the Japanese had a score to settle with the Soviets having been bloodied by them in 1939 – I think it was in a border war in Manchuria/Mongolia (it was their failure there which persuaded them to go for America).
Regarding the five mistakes I am not convinced that 2 was within their power (the others were indeed mistakes mostly motivated by their racial theories).
The problem for Hitler and co. was that they were unable to get at the Navy. The British Navy were capable of coming South as soon as an invasion was in the offing and smashing to smithereens the invasion fleet. The Germans had no surface ships to speak of.
The Germans were trying to get control of the air in order that they could then be in a position to sink the British fleet if it tried to intervene.
There is a myth cultivated in the UK that the RAF were on their last legs when the Germans switched to bombing of cities. Well, that is only partly true. Certainly had Germans continued to bomb radar and airfields that would have created problems for the RAF. But the truth is they had lots of planes available out of range of the Germans and these reserves were available to be brought into the battle as and when. The RAF were a long way from being beaten.
Probably the loss of good pilots was more of an issue – but that was an issue for the Germans as well. They too were being drained of resources and were under pressure.
Perhaps if Hitler had called off Barbarossa and concentrated on plane production he could have had another go in 1941, but the UK were outperforming him in plane production at the time I believe.
One strategy that might have won him the war would have been to vastly increase U Boat production, and sink even more shipping than they did since the UK were dependent on food and raw material imports. But that would have taken time. Had he begun building more U boats earlier, he would have had fewer resources for army and air force which might have meant that he was less successful in Poland and France, although on balance it might have been a better strategy.
Comment by marisbo — January 10, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
[...] Vairāk variet uzzināt šeit! [...]
Pingback by reinisf.com » Archivs » Eiropas karte, ja nacisti būtu uzvarējuši — February 3, 2009 @ 2:16 am
[...] Maps (”186 – Europe, If the Nazis Had Won“) Escrito en Ucronía. Etiquetas: Alemania, Europa, Segunda Guerra [...]
Pingback by Qué hubiera pasado sí … la Segunda Guerra mundial hubiera acabado de otra forma « Proyecto A1 — February 17, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
“Perhaps if Hitler had called off Barbarossa and concentrated on plane production he could have had another go in 1941, but the UK were outperforming him in plane production at the time I believe.”
And let Stalin invade Germany and all of Europe from the East like he planned to? I think not!
The real mistakes Hitler made were
1. He stopped the armies at Dunkirk, letting the remains of the British army escape (though they had to leave all their heavy equipment behind).
2. He didn’t launch Sealion when he had the chance (summer-autumn 1940).
3. He split Army Group Center in the autumn of 1941 and going for the flanks (Ukraine and Leningrad) before Moscow.
The third one being his greatest flaw which cost him the war on the Eastern Front.
Comment by Fulmen — March 3, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
Overall, had Hitler let his generals do their job, Germany would have no doubt won the war.
Comment by Fulmen — March 3, 2009 @ 11:50 pm
Hi.
I loose control!
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3544.0]2009 bonus casino no deposit[/url]
2009 bonus casino no deposit
2009 bonus casino no deposit
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3542.0]Uk casino gambling online[/url]
Uk casino gambling online
Uk casino gambling online
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3541.0]Gambling uk[/url]
Gambling uk
Gambling uk
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3539.0]Casino uk[/url]
Casino uk
Casino uk
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3538.0]Uk casino[/url]
Uk casino
Uk casino
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3536.0]Best internet casino uk[/url]
Best internet casino uk
Best internet casino uk
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3535.0]Casino internet uk[/url]
Casino internet uk
Casino internet uk
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3534.0]Blackjack casino online review[/url]
Blackjack casino online review
Blackjack casino online review
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3533.0]Blackjack casino gambling online[/url]
Blackjack casino gambling online
Blackjack casino gambling online
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3532.0]Blackjack cash casino online[/url]
Blackjack cash casino online
Blackjack cash casino online
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3531.0]Blackjack casino online table[/url]
Blackjack casino online table
Blackjack casino online table
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3530.0]Blackjack casino online play[/url]
Blackjack casino online play
Blackjack casino online play
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3529.0]Blackjack casino online[/url]
Blackjack casino online
Blackjack casino online
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3528.0]Blackjack gambling[/url]
Blackjack gambling
Blackjack gambling
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3527.0]Online gambling blackjack[/url]
Online gambling blackjack
Online gambling blackjack
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3526.0]Gambling blackjack[/url]
Gambling blackjack
Gambling blackjack
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3525.0]Casino blackjack[/url]
Casino blackjack
Casino blackjack
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524.0]Casino poker games blackjack[/url]
Casino poker games blackjack
Casino poker games blackjack
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3523.0]Blackjack casino[/url]
Blackjack casino
Blackjack casino
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3522.0]Blackjack bonus[/url]
Blackjack bonus
Blackjack bonus
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3521.0]Real casino slot online[/url]
Real casino slot online
Real casino slot online
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3520.0]Real gambling[/url]
Real gambling
Real gambling
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3519.0]Real online poker[/url]
Real online poker
Real online poker
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3518.0]Real money poker star[/url]
Real money poker star
Real money poker star
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3517.0]Full tilt poker real money[/url]
Full tilt poker real money
Full tilt poker real money
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3516.0]Play poker real money[/url]
Play poker real money
Play poker real money
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3515.0]Jackpot gambling tip[/url]
Jackpot gambling tip
Jackpot gambling tip
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3514.0]Black jack tip[/url]
Black jack tip
Black jack tip
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3513.0]Roulette tip[/url]
Roulette tip
Roulette tip
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3512.0]Slot machine tip[/url]
Slot machine tip
Slot machine tip
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3511.0]Usa casino promotion[/url]
Usa casino promotion
Usa casino promotion
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3510.0]Bonus casino promotion[/url]
Bonus casino promotion
Bonus casino promotion
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3509.0]Internet casino promotion[/url]
Internet casino promotion
Internet casino promotion
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3507.0]Best casino promotion[/url]
Best casino promotion
Best casino promotion
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3506.0]Online casino promotion bonus[/url]
Online casino promotion bonus
Online casino promotion bonus
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3505.0]Top online casino promotion[/url]
Top online casino promotion
Top online casino promotion
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3504.0]Best online casino promotion[/url]
Best online casino promotion
Best online casino promotion
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3503.0]Online casino free promotion[/url]
Online casino free promotion
Online casino free promotion
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3502.0]Casino bonus promotion[/url]
Casino bonus promotion
Casino bonus promotion
[url=http://www.electronictransfer.com/forum/index.php?topic=3501.0]Casino promotion no deposit[/url]
Casino promotion no deposit
Casino promotion no deposit
[url=http://www.disaboom.com/members/nodepositcasino.aspx]no deposit casino bonus[/url] [url=http://www.disaboom.com/members/casinobonus.aspx]Best Online Casino Bonuses[/url] Buy
Comment by Fuqmsew — March 20, 2009 @ 6:27 am
Fulmen says:
” The real mistakes Hitler made were
1. He stopped the armies at Dunkirk, letting the remains of the British army escape (though they had to leave all their heavy equipment behind).”
That was a mistake. But it had no real bearing on the war apart from morale. As you say, they left their equipment behind. Had all the army been captured, the British Navy and RAF would still be in position to sink a barge invasion force before they got anywhere near the UK.
“2. He didn’t launch Sealion when he had the chance (summer-autumn 1940).”
It would have been a disaster had he launched it. Very few soldiers would have made it on to the mainland. The RAF had large reserves of planes to the North don’t forget.
“3. He split Army Group Center in the autumn of 1941 and going for the flanks (Ukraine and Leningrad) before Moscow.”
Yes, it was a mistake. But it is a mistake to think that taking Moscow would have been an end of it. Napoleon took Moscow. German supply line would be extended even further, while Soviet lines would be shortened. The Soviets had already moved huge amounts of machinery east of the Urals.
“The third one being his greatest flaw which cost him the war on the Eastern Front.”
No. I disagree. I think his greatest mistake – thankfully (you don’t sound too thankful though) –
was (a) rushing it and (b) failing to invest in the navy esp U Boats.
Enough U Boats could have strangled Britain and rendered US aid impotent. Similarly, they could have prevented the USA extending its power directly.
But Hitler was very much a continental land thinker.
Comment by marisbo — March 22, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
thanks for a great post, i may put a link to it in my own blog.if thats ok with you?
cheeres
liran
Comment by li — April 25, 2009 @ 10:56 am
thank you
Comment by Tony — May 4, 2009 @ 3:09 am
شكرا
Comment by الفارس — May 5, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
thanks for this map..
good
luck
Comment by Solomon — May 11, 2009 @ 8:38 am
merci
Comment by aspicco . — May 17, 2009 @ 6:23 am
Dear Sir,
Our publishing company “Les Editions du Cherche-Midi” (France) is currently working on a book project entitled “L’Europe à la carte” directed by Jean-Christophe Bas, UN Strategic Partnerships Manager for the Alliance of Civilizations.
We are very interested in this illustration which is part of our selection, and would be very pleased to be able to publish it in our book.
This book will be composed of about fifty maps and illustrations of Europe, which will be commented by international diplomats, politicians and key figures exposing their vision of Europe.
The book will be edited in France up to 3000 copies in French language, and will be distributed in France (Retail price : about 25 euros, 224 pages).
Could you please infrm us on how to get the permission to publish this illustration, and whether you could send it to us with a 300 DPI resolution ?
We are looking forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Véronique Pret
Iconographer for “Le Cherche-Midi” Publishing
13-15 rue Amelot
75 011 Paris
01 73 71 68 73
06 83 65 68 35
Comment by Véronique Pret — May 26, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
“Fortunately this is not the actual Europe’s map”
I have read this comment, and started wondering, if really more nations would be happy if this map was realised (in comparison to the real history), or not? So I made a simple table, with European nations qualifying them into categories: FOR this map (they would be more happy in realising this map, than the actual history), and AGAINST this map (they wouldn’t like this map to be realised). For some nations I couldn’t decide, so I made a third category for them (numbers are approximate populations in millions):
FOR
Ukrainians 43 – they’d have their own much bigger country
Bulgarians 8
Croats 5
Slovaks 5
Macedonians 2 – I assume that they’d rather live in Bulgarian, than Serbian state
Bosniaks 2 – I assume that they’d rather live in Croatian, than Serbian state
Silesians 2
Montenegrins 1
Italians 53
Spaniards 40
Romanians 23
Germans 89
Flemish 6
Albanians 5
Lithuanians 3 (although they’d loose Klaipeda, but they’d have their own country yet in 1945)
Latvians 1
Volga Tatars and close Turkic 12
Finno-Ugric (Hungarians, Finns, Estonians, etc.) 22
Azeris 7
Geogrians 4
TOGETHER: 333 milion people FOR
AGAINST
Russians 90 – quite obvious, but for example Cossacks included into this number, could have been for, as they’d have their own Kuban.
Poles 38 – quite obvious
Czechs 10
Serbs 12
Belorusians 10
Slovenes 02
Francophonie (French, Walloons, Romands, Provencals, Occitans, Aranese) 61
English 45
Dutch 14
Norwegians 4
Danes 5
Greeks 12
Roma 4
Caucasian (Chechens etc.) 4
Basque 1
Jews 1
Abkhazians 1
Ossetians 1
TOGETHER: 315 milion people AGAINST
DEPENDING ON DETAILS:
Portuguese 10
Swedes 9 (in my opinion rather against)
Celtic (Irish, Scots, Welsh, Bretons) 22 (in my opinion rather for)
TOGETHER: 41 milion people not decided
So, the conlusion is, that suprisingly: maybe there would be more people happy because of this map?! What do you think?
PS: For all flamers: I strongly declare, that I personally would be AGAINST this map being realised.
Comment by jakas1 — May 29, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
Reply to Jakas1
A chilling analysis – and one I think is correct. A person might quibble over your population statistics, but the shameful truth of European history is that there were indeed a great many peoples of Europe who would have been quite prepared to accept Nazi German hegemony. One could easily name a dozen lesser European powers who were prepared to accept Nazi German assistance to further their own territorial and domestic grievances. Hungary is a case in point.
We should not forget that the Nazis planned genocide of the Jewish, Roma and other peoples was not a pressing concern of most governments of the day; whether allied to or fighting against the Nazis. Nor was Hitler’s eugenic program against the feeble minded, physically challenged, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses and so on. Indeed, there were a great many in the West who admired Hitler; Henry Ford, the Duke of Windsor, Moseley, to name a few. There was even a sympathetic Nazi “party” of sorts in the USA, I believe prior to World War II!
Global hegemony was the issue once WWII was underway… and at the time the Anglo-Americans and Soviets had pretty much conceived the political world as a bi-polar one. The imperial ambitions of Hitler and the Japanese were an interruption that needed to be checked – hence the temporary Capitalist-Communist alliance.
After the Nazis were out of the picture, it was back to business as usual for Anglo-America. One might wonder how things would’ve been had Patton’s advice been taken, and the USA used its short-lived atomic weapon advantage to force the Soviets into compliance?
As a further after-thought, I wonder if the Japanese might have kept their Asian empire had they not attacked Pearl Harbor or threatened the Phillipines? I believe so.
I think the majority of world powers are only concerned with domestic affairs, and will do business with any hegemon as long as ‘business’ can proceed without crippling penalties. This ought to be food for thought for those who enjoy hating the USA (the current world hegemon). How will things be should (or when?) the hegemony of the USA end/s?
Comment by Mark — May 30, 2009 @ 7:03 am
Vielen Dank
Comment by moon — July 3, 2009 @ 4:49 am
Muchas gracias
Comment by sun — July 4, 2009 @ 7:17 am