
Imagine. Italian songs echoing off the Danube shores. The Netherlands big enough not to have to worry about the sea. A French-Polish border. Imagine Europe without Germany. This map does.
During most of the first half of the 20th century, Germany was seen by much of the rest of the world as a rogue state in the heart of Europe, its incorrigible belligerence a problem not only to be defeated but also to be eradicated – somehow. Inevitably, some on the lunatic fringe called for wiping Germany off the map — literally. One such plan was discussed earlier on this blog (#123).
Although that particular plan was real, and even though the Second World War was contested with more apocalyptic zeal than any other modern-era conflict, simply obliterating Germany was never seriously considered an option. The aforementioned Kaufmann scheme was the work of a lone pamphlettist, and profited Nazi propaganda more than the Allied cause.
Even the Morgenthau plan, used to similar effect by the German propaganda machine, never envisioned dissolving Germany — merely dismembering and dividing it, while neutralising its economic capacity to wage war. This is in effect what happened after the war, albeit that on top of this, the two halves of Germany ended up on opposing sides of the ideological fence now dissecting Europe.
This ‘neutralised’ Germany and relegated questions of its right to exist to the dustbin of history. Some of the old anxieties did resurface in 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell and the West Germans steamrollered German Reunification, much to the dismay of many others. “I like Germany so much that I prefer to have two of them”, was the sarcastic sentiment of many European politicians (the quote is attributed to Francois Mitterrand).
Is this what a Europe without Germany could have looked like? For starters, it doesn’t resemble the Kaufmann map (cf.sup.) And it’s unknown which basis in fact (or fiction) it might have. But the re-drawn borders don’t look like an occupation so much as an absorption: German toponyms have been rendered in the idioms of each conquering country.
- Denmark spills out of Jutland all the way down to Hamborg.
- Poland’s new western border corresponds exactly to the old DDR one, with East German cities renamed Drezno (Dresden), Lipsk (Leipzig) and Berolinsk (Berlin), among others.
- The Czech Republic extends into northern Bavaria, including Nuremhora (Nuremberg).
- Austria has gone completely Italian (Salzburg is now Salcastello) and has overrun southern Bavaria, including Monaco di Baviera (Munich).
- France reaches across the Rhine all the way up to Cassel (Kassel), and has frenchified cities like Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen), Mayence (Mainz) and Charlesrepos (Karlsruhe).
- The Netherlands reach Hamburg and touch Poland, and include Keulen (Cologne), Dusseldorp (Dusseldorf) and Willemspoort (Wilhelmshaven).
Some of the toponyms used here are the accepted translations for German city names already in use in other languages, e.g. Keulen (Dutch), Hamborg (Danish) and Mayence (French). Others are overtranslated: e.g. Eeten for Essen, both of which mean ‘to eat’ in Dutch and German respectively, whereas the city derives its name from a term for the East of for ash trees.
This map found here on the Kalimedia website, which also publishes The Atlas of True Names, discussed in #334. Many thanks to all those who sent in this map.

Even more absurd are the pseudo-translations into italian. Salcastello is actually Salisburgo in Italian (Salzburg) and Ratisbonne sounds actully more French, in Italian it’s Ratisbona (Regensburg).
Congrats on your blog! (10′000′000!)
Comment by Davide — December 11, 2008 @ 3:10 am
I’m also curious to know who devised this map, since the toponym for the Czech Republic — “Czeská” — 1) isn’t Czech (it’d be Česká republika, or Česko more informally); 2) is equivalent to calling the country “Czech” (i.e., not the Czech Republic, or even the unsuccessful English term “Czechia”) and 3) looks vaguely Polish but isn’t quite (the Polish form of “Czech” would be “Czeska,” but without an accent over the “a” — the “á” — since no such letter exists in the Polish alphabet.
Additionally, Nuremberg is rather sloppily rendered into Czech by simply changing “berg” to “hora” (shifting from the German to the Czech word for “mountain”), and there’s already a Czech form of the city name, Norimberk, which is basically a Czechified form of the German name. I confess to not knowing enough German to figure out what the root “Nürn” refers to from the original German name Nürnberg.
Comment by scootage81 — December 11, 2008 @ 4:40 am
This way of sloppily rendering toponyms in another language is in fact pervasive, even where there exist already translations. The “French” part of Germany is another case in point:
- Saarbrücken does have an exonym, “Sarrebruck,” in French, but here they are overly literal and create Sarreponts.
- Karlruhe is in fact well rendered as Charlesrepos (Charles’ retreat)
- Hilarious: Mannheim (Mann=man, -heim: home) is rendered as Foyer d’Homme (!)
- Stuttgart is very philological. Stuttgart is derived from Stutengarten, Stute=mare, Garten=garden. So in French, this is rendered as Jumentgarde (la jument=the mare). But why not Jardin des juments? Or Jumentjardin? Or Jarjuments?
- Aix-la-Chapelle, Fribourg, Francfort, Mayence are actually existing exonyms.
Comment by Davide — December 11, 2008 @ 5:44 am
Especially interesting: What has happened to the cities of Basel and Zürich in Switzerland?
Comment by Thorsten — December 11, 2008 @ 7:36 am
I guess the problem with all these plans about obliterating Germany was that you couldn’t just obliterate all the Germans.
And why didn’t Belgium get anything of Germany in this map?
Comment by tapastalatukat — December 11, 2008 @ 7:56 am
@ tapastalatukat: I agree! Holland even got to take a significant bite out of Belgium, too. The horror!
Comment by Hannah — December 11, 2008 @ 9:10 am
Note that this map was originally printed in DUMMY magazine to illustrate a (largely satirical) article on the “anti-German” political movement in Germany.
Comment by mawa — December 11, 2008 @ 9:59 am
The Dutch translations from German are also wrong. Bremen remains Bremen and not Brejmen, Rijn is the Dutch word for the German word Rhijn, Meuse is Maas, Essen becomes Eten and Hanover is still Hanover.
Comment by Michielgr1977 — December 11, 2008 @ 10:01 am
> Why do all cities in Austria have Italian names?
> Drezno and Lipsk are actual exonyms and are in use due to the Sorbian Slavic minoriry in Saxony. Brennabor is nonsense – it probably comes from Brandenburg, but this is a province, not a town – the correct one should probably be Poczdam for Potsdam. Berlin is Berlin in every Slavic language. If they wanted to rename Magdeburg, they should have gone for the historic Polish name of the town Dziewin.
> Nuremberg (Nürnberg) is Norimberk in Czech, not Nuremhora, which is totally messed up. The name Nürnberg is derived from old German Nuorenberc, meaning Rocky Mountin. Mountin is indeed hora in Czech, rocky would be skalisty, i.e. if they wanted to translate it, it would be Skalista Hora.
> Belgium is already in deep trouble with Flemings and Walloons, they don’t need a third large ethnic/linguistic group ;-)
Comment by пламен — December 11, 2008 @ 10:08 am
@ Davide: The author of the map must have thought that Stuttgart derives from “guard” or something like that, so he translated it into “garde”, its french equivalent. But it does not make sense, indeed.
The map seems to have been made for a German magazine called “Dummy”.
Comment by Jean — December 11, 2008 @ 10:16 am
@4 Thorsten: Basel’s taken on its French name and Zurich’s taken on its original (pre-German) name.
I’ve got little experience in any languages other than English and French so I can’t say for sure, but from the comments so far it seems that this map has not only removed Germany but even removed German influences on the place names, using literal translations(or at least attempting to) for some city names instead of already accepted names based on the German name. This is why I think Austria has Italian names.
Comment by boznia — December 11, 2008 @ 10:16 am
[...] en esta anotación de Strange [...]
Pingback by Europa sin Alemania, ¿cómo sería? « ¡Qué no se diga! — December 11, 2008 @ 10:35 am
They moved the Dutch capital to The Hague…
Comment by Bernard — December 11, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
First, I agree questoning the neglecting of Belgium in getting German territority. Aken and Keulen also revolted during the Belgian Revolution of 1830.
Besides, there is a more or less significant German speaking minority in Belgium. They are situated in the most eastern part of Belgium, and have an own community(I guess it would take to long to explain the whole story). In Flanders they are usually called Oostkantons(eastern cantons, original!), however the inhabitants don’t really like this name. Their ministre-president is Karl-Heinz Lambertz, who became quite popular during the crisis of gevornement last year, in the rest of Belgium.
Comment by Merc — December 11, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
The only thing here that doesn’t seem that far-fetched is the Danish expansion into the duchies of Schleswig-Holstein (or Slesvig-Holsten, as it is in Danish) and Saxe-Lauenburg, all of which were part of greater Denmark until 1864.
Comment by Kristian — December 11, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
Hey, why doesn’t Switzerland get its fair share of what we here like to call “the large, norther canton”?
Comment by Swiss — December 11, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Ah, forgot: But the place names are screwed up as elsewhere:
* Flensburg is Flensborg in Danish, not Vlensborg (unlike Dutch and German, V is pronounced v in Danish – not f).
* Kiel in German is Kiel in Danish, not Kilfjord (that would be the fjord into Kiel, named Kielerfjorden in Danish).
* Lübeck in German is Lybæk in Danish, not Lobek.
So that’s 3 of 4 wrong – as you say Hamborg is correct in Danish.
Comment by Kristian — December 11, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Wonder if the rest of the world ever daydreams of doing this to us…
Comment by AmbroseKalifornia — December 11, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
@ boznia: you’re right, it really seems that the point was eliminating all German influences, even from already existing exonyms. That explains the over-translations like Saarbrücken > Sarrebruck > Sarreponts; or Salzburg > Salisburgo > Saliscastello.
Another gem: Dortmund (dort (ger.)=there, Mund=mouth) is translated into Daarmond (daar (du.)=there, mond=mouth).
Comment by Davide — December 11, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
[...] 337 – Europe Without Germany and 50 – “Germany Must Die” [Strange Maps] [...]
Pingback by Maps Imagine Post-War Europe Without Germany « Popular Culture — December 11, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
[...] 2Fast4 und ich würden heute französisch sprechen, Kazonga österreichisch und Floriel holländisch, oder gar polnisch? Na, jedenfalls wären das aber bunte Aussichten! [...]
Pingback by Isnochys » Blog Archive » Grenzverlauf — December 11, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
When Dutch, Essen would stay Essen. There is also an Essen in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium, so why not?
Hannover would be Hannover or Hanover, most probably not Hanoover, though I would prefer Hanoever, because they say the “over” part is from “Ufer” (riverbank) which translates oever in Dutch. The Han- part, BTW, is for Hohen (high).
Bremen will stay Bremen, there is already a small hamlet in the Netherlands with that name. Even though the etymology doesn’t fit.
Weser would be Wezer, because that is the Dutch name of the river, or stay Weser. There is a small river in eastern Belgium called Weser too. Alternatively Werser, from Plattdüütsch.
Wilhelmshaven will be Willemshaven. Haven is the proper Dutch translation of North-German Haven (south Germany writes Hafen). The German translation of Willemspoort would be Wilhemstor.
As pointed out earlier, Meusse = Maas, Rhijn = Rijn.
I don’t know about the Elbe river, is Eelbe Danish? At least it’s not Dutch. I guess in Dutch it would be the Elf.
I’m not sure about Daarmond/Dortmund. It would imply there is a river “Daar”. Considering etymology, I would prefer Strotmond as a translation *g*
In the northern part of Germany, they speak Plattdüütsch, which is more or less a Dutch dialect. So there is not a lot of translation necessary.
It’s my personal opinion that it would be a good idea to make Den Haag the Dutch capital ;-) Or move it over to the former royal residence Hanoever.
Comment by Yaghish — December 11, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
Berlin is already a Slavic toponym, so why bother?
Comment by slav — December 11, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
Why is Bornholm a part of Sweden in this map? I can’t find anything about the island in the text.
Comment by Johan — December 11, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
[...] 337 – Europe Without Germany Imagine. Italian songs echoing off the Danube shores. The Netherlands big enough not to have to worry about the sea. A [...] [...]
Pingback by Top Posts « WordPress.com — December 12, 2008 @ 12:28 am
Germany was actually part of France, not the other way around. Way back in the time of Charlemagne, Germany, especially the western part, was part of the Frankish kingdom under Charlemagne. When he became the first Holy Roman Emperor, France and Germany and other vassal states, including Italy, was “re-united” as a new Roman Empire.
Comment by Under The Hill — December 12, 2008 @ 3:12 am
Europe Without Germany Imagine.
Berlin is already a Slavic toponym, so why bother?
Comment by y8 — December 12, 2008 @ 7:48 am
I don’t know about other cities, but I do notice that Aachen (Aix-la Chapelle) is not only translated into it’s French name, but also has been relocated about 100km south-southeast from it’s original location (about halfway on the line Liege-Köln), to make sure it falls into the French instead of Dutch territory.
Comment by Bismarck — December 12, 2008 @ 10:44 am
The fact that Belgium doesnt get its share of Germany is very wise. Great visionairs apparently foresaw Belgium incompetence back then. They cant even handle their present small territory.
Comment by Great Holland — December 12, 2008 @ 10:45 am
@26: And the Franks, as you might know were a German people. They actually conquered what is now France (and some more) from their original lands on the eastbanks of the Rhine river.
One could also say both France and Germany were part of Belgium, as Charlemange, his father and grandfather were all born in the vicinity of Liege, in current Belgium.
Comment by Bismarck — December 12, 2008 @ 10:49 am
@plamen (with kyrillic letters): “Brennabor” is the ancient name of a town now called “Brandenburg” (at the river Havel). This town gave its name to the province “Brandenburg”. I must know, because I was born and raised in this town. But even many Germans don’t know about it, although it is not THAT small and it’s located near Berlin and Potsdam, so that one could occasionally detect it when looking at a map. It’s also located correctly in the map above.
Comment by hamlet — December 12, 2008 @ 11:50 am
Actually, in Durtch, “Essen” would remain the same.
Comment by henk — December 12, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
@ henk
Actually, as you well know we Dutch don’t say ‘Essen’ but ‘Eten’
After all, it is Eten of gegeten worden/Essen oder gegessen worden ;)
Comment by Tobi — December 12, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
Hanover wouldn’t be Hanoover but Hannover in Dutch.
Comment by Lolpiet — December 12, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
[...] ever wonder what the map of Europe might look like if Germany weren’t there? The creator of this map did. Especially entertaining are the translations of German city [...]
Pingback by Christmas Bells, etc. « Verstehen — December 12, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
Funny!
Under this scheme, the Netherlands would actually become more German than Dutch (not only in surface but also in population – this part of Germany has a population at leastwice that of Holland), and so Germany would really still exist…
Comment by igor — December 12, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
And room enough for Wim Heitinga.
Comment by sytze vliegen — December 12, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
Belgium is a failed experiment. It is only a matter of time before they return to their true state, The Netherlands. Anybody with a bit of knowledge of NorthWes-Europe can know this!
Comment by willem — December 12, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
Even the Polish names of the Polish cities are messed up. It should be Wrocław and Katowice, not “Wroslaw” and “Kattowice”. The German names are respectively Breslau and Kattowitz, so it’s probably the cause.
Comment by sexbeer — December 13, 2008 @ 12:27 am
@ willem
Every Belgian would rather be dead, then being re-attached to Holland.
Comment by Merc — December 13, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
As belgian I would rather be re-attached to Holland than to be dead.
Comment by Pintje — December 13, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
Anvers has to be ‘Antwerpen’
Comment by Belgian — December 13, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
They moved the Dutch capital to The Hague…
Comment by Bernard — December 11, 2008 @
In that time that would be correct. Amsterdam is the capital of The Netharlands since 1983. Before that The Hague was the capital. The government seats there and it The Hague is the residence of the Dutch Royal Family.
Comment by Merlot — December 13, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
@43: Please don’t try to spread lies. Amsterdam has been the capital of the Netherlands since 1814. The Hague has never been the capital.
Comment by Bismarck — December 13, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
[...] 337 – Europe Without Germany and 50 – “Germany Must Die” [Strange Maps] [...]
Pingback by Jews: Germany Must Die « Exposing Zionofascism in Canada and the World — December 14, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
[...] Europa ohne Deutschland? Außerhalb von AntiFa-Kreisen nur schwer vorstellbar, haben die Leute von Strangemaps das alte Motto: “Deutschland von der Karte streichen, Frankreich muss bis Polen [...]
Pingback by Maps.AntiFa.com « Wechselwirkungen — December 15, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
What is really wrongis teh location of Aix-La-Chappele (=Aachen). It should be in the dutch part of Germany (that is weird sentence to write) at the same height as Cologne (Keulen). The whole city has moved 30 miles to the south.
Comment by Marc — December 16, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
About the capital of the Netherlands always having been Amsterdam, that depends on how you define ‘the Netherlands’. Historically Brussels is the capital of the Netherlands (or Belgium, since the name belgium is simply derived from the Latin name of the historic region refered to as the Low Countries or ‘Netherlands’).
We can quite safely say that Amsterdam has always been the capital of the Kíngdom of the Netherlands, but the Netherlands didn’t come about in one day after Napoleon’s forces left, their had been Netherlands before the kingdom. In Habsburg times Brussels was the capital of the Netherlands. When the Republic came about it was a rather loose confederation, so it didn’t require a formal capitol and The Hague was simply where the States General resided. Historically this was logical since The Hague was the old capitol of Holland (not to be confused with the entire Netherlands). Within the Republic Amsterdam emerged as the strongest city after some time, mainly due to the wealth that resulted from trade. This (and the Belgian secession in 1830 as one could argue) is the reason that Amsterdam is now the capitol of the Netherlands.
Comment by Stadjer — December 16, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
About Igor’s remark that the Netherlands would become more German than Dutch in this scenario, I wouldn’t agree. You have to consider that the Netherlands have been part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and the definition of the borders of the Netherlands wasn’t a clear cut decision in one moment. Some counties in the western part of Germany like Lingen, Bentheim, Kleef and Emden/Eastern Frisia have many connections with the Netherlands and have at some point been part of the Netherlands or the Netherlands sphere of influence as Germany was not yet a centralised nation-state. Today many people on both sides of the Dutch-German border in Groningen and Niedersachsen for example speak local dialects that are very much akin. Within the Netherlands and Germany respectively there are diverse local identities (people from Niedersachsen are more similar to Dutch and people from Bavaria more similar to Austrians), so it should theoretically be possible over time to create a new centralised nation state out of Dutch and Low-German people/regions. I would also argue that the inclusion of Western-Germans into the Netherlands, Bavarians into Austria or Northern-Germans into Denmark for that matter is culturally far easier than including Germans into Poland, the Czech Republic or even France.
Comment by Stadjer — December 16, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
[...] 337 – Europe Without Germany « Strange Maps – [...]
Pingback by The PHA : Bookmarks for December 16th from 18:38 to 18:38 — December 17, 2008 @ 3:20 am
[...] Europe Without Germany [...]
Pingback by Massive Squad » Blog Archive » Blogs: Strange Maps — December 17, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
Luxembourg doesn’t get any of its territory back, eh?
Comment by TGla323 — December 17, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
it’nice blog
Comment by putri-bali — December 26, 2008 @ 5:40 am
Interesting imaginary carving up Germany. Nuremberg in the Czech Republic, Munich in Austria, and all cities pertaining to Charlemagne in France — The regions’ “reassignment” to neighboring countries by cultural affinity is quite plausible, reminiscent of “the nine nations of North America”.
Comment by Magyar — December 30, 2008 @ 3:41 am
Am I visually impaired or did Liechtenstein grow a whole lot? Also, amazing to see how far Berlin actually is from Amsterdam. (If this map is accurate, which I doubt, seeing other people’s comments…)
Oh, and it’s rather ironic to see all these German toponyms rendered in other languages when German is actually spoken in most of the border regions of these countries.
Comment by Watson Waterstone — December 31, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
[...] Quelle You can also bookmark this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos [...]
Pingback by Dr. Brägelmanns Blog » Nooo! - Bornholm gehört zu Schweden! — January 3, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_dominions_1918.html
Other maps o fwhat superpowers had in mind with Europe before and during WW1
Comment by Platon — January 5, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
Polish names Rostock is Roztoka, Schwerin is Zwierzyn, Chemnitz is Kamienica and Gera is Góra. All geografical places in est on Elbe/ Saale line (Linia łaby i Soławy) have polish names.
Comment by Redlight — January 6, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
Knowing how much people in the southern provinces of the Netherlands dislike the “keeskoppen” from Holland, I would like to suggest that we remove the Netherlands from the map too.
Belgium should be enlarged in the southwest with French Flanders, Artois and Picardie, so that’s just a bit beyond Amiens. The Ambiani were a Belgian tribe in Roman times, and those departments were part of Bourgondy in Medieval times. See this map to get an idea: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Map_France_1477-fr.svg
Luxemburg should be seriously enlarged, taking the Belgian province with the same name and doubling its size. Again, look at a map from 1477: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Map-1477_Low_Countries.png
In the north of Belgium, everything south of the Rhine goes to Belgium, and everything north of it goes to Fryslân (Friesland).
And yes, Anvers should be Antwerpen, and Bruxelles should be Brussel. Or even better, Broekzele.
Comment by Amedee — January 10, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
raite it was with out
thanks
Comment by top — January 23, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
thank u
very
match
Comment by توب — January 23, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
[...] sehen.. hier. « [...]
Pingback by Europe without Germany at sleeptalk.org — January 28, 2009 @ 11:13 am
Interesting suppositions. Essen(the town), however, derives from die Esse(n), meaning smithy, forge, chimney, not the verb essen-to eat, so any translation into another language would have to be based on the same root word.
Comment by Walking Bear — January 29, 2009 @ 8:36 am
[...] nicht immer auf die influenza-karte stieren (siehe letztes posting). besonders erstaunlich finde icheurope without germany im strangemaps-blog, denn es sieht irgendwie gar nicht so aus, als ob etwas fehlen würde. bildete [...]
Pingback by grippewelle II < Madame Poupous geheimes Laboratorium — February 4, 2009 @ 9:39 am
too much poland. would love to belong to czech republic :) and where is the land of the sorbs?
Comment by holger — February 11, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
2009… Prost!
Comment by nexuslex — February 15, 2009 @ 11:44 am
This map implies genocide. Funny how that’s okay with German people. Most of them weren’t even Nazi’s. That was just the political party that was funded by the private owners of the Bank of England and Federal Reserve, so that Europe could have another war. The end result being a new ‘League of Nations’. Why give France more of Germany that isn’t even theirs eg Alsace. Why let Poland steal more of Germany ie, west of the river Oder. Why give the Checz more when they already illegally stole the land of 3 million Germans? Why give Italian any more of Austria, when they still claim to own Sth Tirol, German speaking. The German people were the victims, beat up by Anglo-American and Russian bullies.
Comment by Martin — February 19, 2009 @ 4:49 am
[...] Haha, und den muss ich auch noch nachreichen. Absolut tolle Karte. (via: strangemaps) [...]
Pingback by Europa ohne Deutschland | schonleben mittendrin: subjektiv, subversiv! — March 9, 2009 @ 10:45 am
@Martin: The map isn’t implying or advocating genocide – it was written by a German and published in a German magazine, as a satire of anti-German sentiment within Germany.
Comment by rsm109 — March 14, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
пламен:
Brandenburg is also a town, for which the province is named.
Under The Hill:
The Franks were a Germanic people (ref. Frankfurt). Actually, a large percentage of the French population, as well as the Spanish and Italian, are of Germanic stock.
Yaghish:
Plattdüütsch is not a Dutch dialect. It’s more like the other way around; Well into the 17th century Dutch was actually considered a German dialect. To me, as a Norwegian speaker knowing English and German, written Dutch is easily comprehensible, as it is very similar to all three languages.
Although this map is just for fun, it does touch an important issue; There are countless regions in Europe that belong to a nation state which the population feels
no or little connection to. A Europe of regions, and not nation states, would be the best solution to this in my eyes, not enforcing artificial borders on unwilling citizens.
Comment by Ole P. — March 18, 2009 @ 11:30 am
[...] deling’ na de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Lees meer over deze kaart – en verwante kaarten – op Strange Maps. Joop Hopster | 10-04-09 | 07:23 | Lees | Print dit bericht | Email dit bericht | 0 [...]
Pingback by VPRO In Europa » Strange Maps: Europe without Germany — April 10, 2009 @ 6:08 am
@rsm69 Sure it does. Because there is no way in hell such a process would work without thoroughly dismantling German cultural identity by means of enforced assimilation, i.e. suppression of customs, languages, local laws, etc.
Of course, the author might not have thought about it, but that doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Comment by Peter Brülls — May 10, 2009 @ 8:51 am