Talk:Macedonia (1983: Doomsday)

Owner, could I help you with this? BoredMatt 00:43, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, you can start by updating the flag and CoA picture, they are the real ones for Macedonia, but the map I need is of an area called Greater Macedonia Ownerzmcown 00:55, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

The map you have IS of Greater Macedonia. And how would you like me to update the flag or CoA? BoredMatt 12:49, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually the map I got is very recent and I just fixed the problem, but nothings wrong with the flag or CoA anymore, Yankovic fixed it. Ownerzmcown 12:54, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that this entire area would be under the control of this state in the first place. Not only that, but the proposal I'd made before this one saw the light of day for a Bulgarian successor state - Rhodope - takes up the northeast portion of the map. Correct as needed.

But, the biggest issue is the prince himself. At Doomsday Alexander - and his family - were barred from Yugoslavia, would have been in either Spain or Great Britain and thus more than likely perished as a result.

Also, there is no such thing as a Macedonian language - the majority of the population speaks Bulgarian, in reality.

Please do some research - it needs it. VERY BADLY.

Lordganon 08:23, June 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Umm, Lordganon, there is such a thing as a Macedonian language.--Vladivostok 08:59, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

First, our countries are still proposals so the maps and locations are still up for debate, and two because he was living in Seville, Spain at the time, he would only have to be protected from moderate fallout and a bunker, which he likely would have had, would easily protect him. Ownerzmcown 13:00, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

"Macedonian" is just a politicized dialect of Bulgarian. It's like calling American and British English two separate languages.

Seville would have been nuked - and besides, he'd have had no way of getting there, especially with the many men.

Also, Greece would never have gone for that deal with a Macedonian kingdom if it involved a loss of land - see their disputes with the current Macedonian nation for details.

Alas, I have made mine before yours, so it does have precedence over this.

Lordganon 20:23, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

How bloody dare you! First of all, you didn't even contact ME, caretaker of the Federation of Greece over anything, and yet you take half of my bloody claims and sovereign Greek territory? Shrink your claims or so help me God I will fight tooth-and-nail to make sure this never graduates.
 * If Mr. Hicken and Mr. Carnehl could see how bloody awful this TL (this whole site actually) has become they'd probably shed a few tears.

Mr.Xeight 21:01, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the King be named Alexander II? Because their was, of course another Macedonian king named Alexander. Alexander the Great. Sure he reigned in ancient times, but that matters not.

Yankovic270 23:03, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Technically Mr. Xeight, the area he's controlling isn't controlled by the Federation of Greece according to your maps, so as far as the FoG is concerned, its legitimate. Unless of course, there's a map I missing. If so, forgive me.

But I'm just curious. What nuclear strikes occured around this area and how heavy would the fallout be? Also, this ATL allows for some wiggle room. Even if the Yugoslav king at the time was in Spain, he could live on the outskirts of the city, have a bunker, and have enough private funds left to procure a ship, which could have made a haphazard journey during the post-Doomsday chaos to Macedonia. So I don't see too much of a problem with that. You do have to be creative after all. Caeruleus 04:06, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Theocracy of the Holy Mountain, an integral member of the Federation; besides I've made it known the Federation claims all of pre-Doomsday Greece's borders; good to know you've done your research. Mr.Xeight 05:29, June 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, am I getting this right that this is a Slavo-Macedonian state, ruling over northern Greece and led by a Serb that nevertheless manages to be perfectly stable even in a post-Doomsday world? Did anyone even bother to look up the highly explosive ethnic make-up of the area? --Karsten vK (talk) 16:53, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is inplausible. The Balkans would have torn itself apart through ethnic violence. The OTL dissolution of Yugoslavia shows us how the ethnic make up of the area would have had an even greater impact in this ATL. And I doubt Macedonia would be this big, even if it survived Doomsday. It would probably be smaller, since refugees from Greece and Bulgaria and other parts of Yugoslavia would have overwhelmed the states borders. HAD 10:03, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um... question: Wasn't Thessaloniki nuked? just asking, because Thessaloniki would make much of the Macedonian claim almost ininhabitable. Fedelede 13:26, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Macedonia is still a moderately sized region, Thessaloniki would not be hit by that many nukes, and why wasn't Athens hit, the map doesn't show that. Ownerzmcown 19:52, July 2, 2010 (UTC) 19:52, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * The confederation of greece page says Athens and Thessaloniki were hit. The Mt Athos state of the Federation I would assume controls most of Chalkidiki Prefecture. The confederation also claims all of pre-dd greece so if you want to have any Greek territory it will put Macedonia in bad relations with Greece. Greece being a major member of the league of nations, Macedonia's claims to greek territory would not be recognized either.Oerwinde 18:17, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * They don't have to be recognized to actually exist. Greece can still claim the territory, even if its administered by Macedonia. It sets the stage for conflict later down the road, which is a good thing in my opinion. Caeruleus 21:54, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I think it more likely for them to have taken parts of Albania rather than Greece. The Confederation has a strong presence in the area, while Albania is weak militarily, etc. So if they don't want to be landlocked, that might make more sense. Unless.... they moved in on the territory of the former city of Thessaloniki, which the greeks might have given up as uninhabitable and therefore abandoned. Because Greece is pretty much a thalassocracy, so most of the other coastal regions of greece would be in Greek hands, making the ruins of the city the only greek area Macedonia could control.Oerwinde 22:43, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the map shows Thessaloniki and the surrounding area under Macedonian control, so that makes sense. Other than that though, Macedonia doesn't really control a whole lot of Greece territory. I think its fine, but if it must be changed only a small portion of coastal Macedonia to the east and west of Thessaloniki would need to be designated as Greek. Caeruleus 15:49, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was bored with nothing else to do, so here's a map of what I think Macedonia and Greece would look like. Macedonian claims are shrunk some, but they still control Thessaloniki. All Greek claims are respected. GreeceandMacedonia.gif remember, this is a horribly designed map. I did it in 5 minutes with MSPaint. Caeruleus 18:45, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I love this new map, but if you can do anything to fix this, then I'll agree to put it on. Ownerzmcown 19:30, July 5, 2010 (UTC) 19:30, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * MapofConfedofGreece_copy.jpg's an improved map. It's not perfect, but it properly shows a possible border between Greece and Macedonia. Caeruleus 23:39, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, it looks good, but part of the areas shown in the first one isn't in the second one, if you can fix that, then I'll put it up.
 * Ownerzmcown 23:42, July 5, 2010 (UTC) 23:42, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * MapofConfedofGreece_copy.jpg's an improved map. It's not perfect, but it properly shows a possible border between Greece and Macedonia. Caeruleus 23:39, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, it looks good, but part of the areas shown in the first one isn't in the second one, if you can fix that, then I'll put it up.
 * Ownerzmcown 23:42, July 5, 2010 (UTC) 23:42, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

An improvement, but you still need to remove the Bulgarian portions. Expand into Albania as compensation.

Lordganon 03:18, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

H 1 truck
Ok, I found it a bit strange when they started mass producing tanks, but an H1 armoured truck? The truck was introduced into the US military in 1984-85. How did it possibly end up in Macedonia?--Vladivostok 13:41, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations! your article is very good. VENEZUELA 22:50, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I like it too. Arstarpool 16:43, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Ditto.

Yankovic270 14:50, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Weaponry & Allies
The weapons Macedonia is equipped with is unrealistic. I'm pretty sure they couldn't produce most of that before the war, and they certainly wouldn't be able to afterwards. Turkey and the Alpine Confederation could both produce some of those weapons, but that would mean everything would be imported. Macedonia could certainly produce some less advanced weaponry though.

Also, you technically can't have an alliance with the Alpine Confederation unless its writer approves it. I don't know if they have, but I thought I should mention that. As for Turkey, I don't mind that we're allied, but Turkey wouldn't send more than 10,000 troops, thought it would be more like 5,000. Other than that, I like it. Caeruleus 16:37, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I think that some of them they would be able to produce, think about it, Macedonia sits on a huge deposit of iron, soon would come steel out of that, and with that steel would eventually come some Tanks and APCs if they got a hold on some, also Yugoslavia and the countries near it would have had multiple military bases in the projected Macedonian territory where the Macedonians would have access to multiple different types of weapons. Ownerzmcown 03:52, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but pre-Doomsday was a minimally industrialized region of Yugoslavia with internal problems. They may have the resources, but they wouldn't have the industry for quite some time. Plus, even if they built up the industry, they wouldn't have the technology to build these weapons, even if they could reverse engineer things. Also, many of the bases you see Macedonia seizing in Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Yugoslavia would be destroyed, pillage, or abandoned during the initial chaos of Doomsday leaving very few weapons and technology to recover. You would surely be able to receive some, but not any weapons in mass quantities. Since this is an althist, they could theoretically come to reverse engineer some of the technology, but it would take years and ultimately be of lower quality. They would also rename these weapons to Macedoian designations. Caeruleus 04:43, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Well, one, I changed it so that all the armed forces had a more realistic stache of weapons, and two, I'm not very knowledgable about Macedonian names, all I know are Alexander and Phillip. Ownerzmcown 13:43, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

The Virginian Republic was just opened to the outside world. If the Virginians and Macedonians became aware of each ofter, the Virginians would be very enthusiastically supplying the Macedonians military equipment. If this is implausible, let me know. But the Virginians would be having a major supply of imcome shipping arms to the other countries.

Yankovic270 14:48, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Alpine Confederation is also a member of the LoN, which the Virginian Republic is also a member of, so therefore, if the two countries were to make contact through the LoN, then the Virginians could easily trade with the Macedonians, likely by water. Ownerzmcown 14:55, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Hey Yank, one, I need a picture of the Thompson tank, and two, is it okay that I make a subsection for the article about our countries making contact. Ownerzmcown 15:31, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

No. By names, I don't mean Macedonian names like Alexander or Phillip. I mean they'll rename the weapons. Like if they built their own M-16, they wouldn't call it the M-16. They'd call it the LN-21 or something like that. Btw, I totally just made that up off the top of my head. Your designations can actually stand for something. And they can stand for something in English if you want. Caeruleus 18:31, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

The Thompson tank is effectively the WWII-era Tiger II, aka the "King Tiger", tank with the design flaws worked out. The earlier models also had design traits of the Pershing heavy tank and the M1 Abrams. The later models also have design charectoristics of the Leopard 2 and the T-80 tanks. You could still call it the M-16, but it would be the "Minta-16" ("Minta" being Hungarian for "Model") Besides, the weapons the Virginians are shipping are the far superior M-14 not the M-16.

Yankovic270 19:13, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

But Yankovic, can I talk about our countries contacting each other? Ownerzmcown 19:24, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Here is the King Tiger tank image I used in the Virginian Republic article



--Yankovic270 19:28, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Naturally you can write about our countries meeting. Would the Macedonians be impressed by how professional the Virginians are?

Yankovic270 19:31, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Probably, although they both have conscription, I'm sure the military training of the armed forces would be impressive. Ownerzmcown 20:06, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Yank, can u contact the guy who make Superior too? I want to make sure its plausible to contact his country. Ownerzmcown 21:22, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

I am the caretaker of Superior. What do you need? Arstarpool 07:33, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Superior and Macedonia would have much contact. Superior has been blocked by Canada from the LoN due to its occupation of parts of Ontario, and its pretty much landlocked.Oerwinde 08:39, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

New Maps
I had more time on my hands. Here are some maps. Caeruleus 00:34, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I really like the second one, if you can get any more maps I'll look at them, but if not, then I'll just put this up Ownerzmcown 00:55, July 11, 2010 (UTC)



My Rhodope article has now been graduated, and you have parts of its territory, both controlled and claimed, included on that map - so that will have to go. Sorry guys, but if you have maps like that I'll never let it graduate.

Lordganon 07:12, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I also think that Greek territory occupied by Macedonia should be shown in a different color as well.Oerwinde 08:37, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the area is only claimed by Rhodope, but if its completely occupied by Macedonia, then it would make sense, but really strain the relationship between the two countries Ownerzmcown 13:25, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Guys, go to the Rhodope page and look at the section called Macedonia

The only overlapping territory is a tiny portion of southwest Rhodope. It can be claimed by Macedonia, but admnistered by Rhodope. Throw in a peace conference to try to settle the dispute if you want, but there's barely any difference to be made on the map. Caeruleus 15:40, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Acutally, it would be the other way around, if you read the Rhodope article, you would see that they agreed to give the area to Macedonia through a peace conference so it could be claimed by Rhodope, but administered by Macedonia. Ownerzmcown 16:00, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Not even close to what has been written guys. The border will stay the same as the old Bulgarian border, as already seen in the article. Its already been said before that that is too large a territory for Macedonia, besides.

The only negotiating in a conference that would be done is maybe a couple of border towns changing hands.

Like I said, take more of Albania in response - I'm sure some Serbian prince would love that idea.

Lordganon 20:30, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Fine, make a map like that and I'll see if I like it Ownerzmcown 20:33, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Ugh...since I'm the one editing the maps, what do you want changed? Reduced Macedonian territory in Bulgaria and greater territory in Albania? Caeruleus 21:43, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, take Macedonia out of Bulgaria and expand it into both Albania and Serbia/Montenegro to compensate. also, if you can show Rhodope and possibly expand onto the Albanian coast if you think its plausible. Ownerzmcown 23:18, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I've reduced the Macedonian Bulgarian territories substanially, using the Rhodope map as a basis. Macedonia still controls some of Bulgaria because its part of Greater Macedonia and they would want to control that. However, since Rhodope claims all of Bulgaria, I've marked that area as "Administered by Macedonia; Claimed by Rhodope." I also included Vidin in the map. Caeruleus 02:11, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Look, sorry to be a bitch about this, but what if you did the Administered by Macedonia; Claimed by Rhodope kinda like a horn that touches Rhodope in the north Ownerzmcown 02:15, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Lolwtf? Can you um...describe that better? But does it really matter? Caeruleus 04:01, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Still not good enough. It needs to have no control over any of Bulgaria, at all. No ifs, ands, or buts. Rhodope and its map are both canon, and therefore must be followed.

Lordganon 11:07, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

The map follows canon. I gave Rhodope the areas of Bulgaria that your map says are under its control/administration. It claims the rest of Bulgaria, but claims mean nothing. Canada claims all of Canada, but barely controls any of it. Same with Rhodope in regards to Bulgaria.

Caeruleus 16:37, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Do you see Macedonia on the map as controlling any of Bulgaria? No? Then it doesn't. Plain and simple.

Besides, your "Serbian prince" would want Serbians, not Bulgarians. Still waiting on you to explain how he could possibly have gotten there to rule, fyi.

Lordganon 21:28, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

So the prince and his very small army tried to make a new country after DD in Yugoslavia, but because it was more stable there and wasn't nuked, they weren't able to succesfully overrun the area from the holders. So they turned south and managed to secure land in the southern part of the country and then continued to expand to secure more land and civilians, and eventually when the situation stabilized they created a new country. Ownerzmcown 22:47, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ownerzmcown, it's your article. What do you want? More of Serbia/Albania and less of Bulgaria? Or do you want it how it is? Caeruleus 02:20, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Actually its fine, thats why I put it up already. Ownerzmcown 03:23, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Still doesnt tell us how he got there.

And, its not fine. So long as that map is there, I will not let this graduate.

--Lordganon 10:16, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

What's your problem with the map? It doesn't even conflict with your Rhodope map. Caeruleus 17:08, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah man, whats wrong with it? Ownerzmcown 21:40, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

On yours, Macedonia is shown as controlling part of Bulgaria. Yet, on the Rhodope map, there is no Macedonia controlling any of it. Thus, the problem. --Lordganon 22:58, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

So, just change your map. Ownerzmcown 23:16, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Your map is the one that needs to be changed. The only reason Macedonia isn't on their is because it wasn't proposed when you made that map. That area isn't controlled by Rhodope and this is a new addition to the canon, therefore, your map needs to be edited accordingly to accomadate this article once it's added to the canon, assuming it is. I'll even change it for you if you want.

Also, as a minor note, your Rhodope article only goes up to 1996, so that map can only be assumed to be a 1996 map. The Macedonian map is a 2010 map. You should probably update your article, but as it is, there's nothing to suggest Macedonia can't control those regions of Bulgaria. So there's no violation of canon. Caeruleus 02:30, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Key thing here - mine is a modern, canonized map - and yours is not. Thus, I don't have to change a thing unless I want to. You do, as I will never let this graduate until you do.

And, I'm almost done the article, just haven't changed it yet ;)

--Lordganon 06:34, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Fine, Caeruleus, make me a mpa where I don't control Bulgaria. Ownerzmcown 10:58, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

P.S. But I want to control more of Serbia.

That doesn't make sense Lordganon since you made that map before this article was created so there's no possible way it could have been on that map, but whatever. If the creator wants it changed, I'll change it. Caeruleus 15:39, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Much better.

Fyi, no work has been done on Albania yet - you could literally take the northern 2/3rds of it and no one will complain ;)

--Lordganon 23:44, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Caeruleus, can you make me a map showing that? Ownerzmcown 00:48, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Greek Issue
I think you need to deal with the aquisition of greek lands better in the article. Its barely mentioned, but it would be a major issue for the Greek population, especially with the existence of a major greek state. While with operation Thessaloniki you would probably have a large amount of Macedonian immigration to the city, the rest of the greek lands would be majority greek and likely seek cecession to the Federation of Greece. This needs to be dealt with in the article I think.Oerwinde 20:16, July 11, 2010 (UTC) I would, but Mr.Xeight wont respond to my messages and I cant mention Greece or he'll get pissed like when I was first making this article, just look in the upper part of this article.Ownerzmcown 20:21, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

As long as you keep in mind that the Federation of Greece claims all of pre-doomsday Greece and incorporate that into the article I don't see a problem. MrX hasn't really filled out his Greece article much, so its hard to work around it, you pretty much just need to extrapolate from existing stuff. Only Athens and Thessaloniki were hit, so Greece wasn't that badly hit, but with no central government they fractured, eventually forming a coalition of these fractured states. This coalition became the major power of the mediterranean. So based on that, you have to assume most of coastal Greece is in the confederation's hands. Being that they are big in the League of Nations, their claims over Greek Macedonia would be recognized internationally and Macedonia would be viewed as an occupying force. Greece is probably too spread out right now to do anything about the Macedonian presence in Greece, and while keeping an outward hostile stance on the reconstruction of Thessaloniki, would privately be happy someone else is taking on the expense of doing so, even if it means a lesser claim to the area. You can write what you want and go from there, don't worry about MrX, he's a very emotional guy, but as long as you know this and can get past it you can work with him(when he shows up) to adjust what you've written.Oerwinde 20:39, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

This is easy to explain away. Thessaloniki was nuked and the local Greek population either died or fled southward. Therefore, the area would be largely empty for years. There wouldn't be many Greeks in the area to protest the Macedonian encroachment. Greece can claim half the world, but the article isn't clear at all so you only have to give them control of the southern half of the pensula to the south of Thessaloniki as part of the Mount Athos state. The rest of northern Greece taken by Macedonia can be said to have been partially evacuated after the nuclear strikes and devestated by refugees from Albania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Yugoslavia. None of these areas are directly controlled by the Greek states either. And tell me if you make any further edits. I'll add it to the map for you. Caeruleus 21:54, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Why would there be devastation by refugees from states not nuked? (Albania, Yugoslavia only got one on its capital). Northern and Western Greece wouldn't be too devastated. Also, as to the new addition, the Greeks wouldn't need to bring Greek settlers, as the local population was already Greek. In order to avoid a greater rebellion Macedonia would have to expel the greek population into Federation lands and bring in Macedonian settlers. This would give them greater control of the land and greater stability (Its what the russians did quite successfully), would piss off the Greeks, and wouldn't look as bad internationally as putting down rebellion after rebellion.Oerwinde 23:12, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just stick to the acquisition of Yugoslavian lands? Sticking to the historic borders may be nice, but I doubt that would happen. Arstarpool 16:37, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Serbian Navy
How can Macedonia have a naval conflict with a landlocked nation?Oerwinde 07:43, July 14, 2010 (UTC) I added in parts that they captured ports in the south. Ownerzmcown 21:32, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Graduation
This is basically the same thing that Caeruleus is doing, does anybody have anymore problems left with my article before it graduates so i can fix it?

P.S. Caeruleus, seriously, I need a map with no Bulgaria, more Serbia and Albania. Ownerzmcown 21:32, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Here's your map. Caeruleus 22:09, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Missed taking out part of Bulgaria ;)

You can easily take half the remaining Albanian territory too - the only Greek claims would be on the southern half of the remaining area.

The area east of Salonica looks like it juts out quite a bit - maybe make it so it doesn't go quite so far east? Would be much harder to defend this way.

Any more expansion in Serbia should be to the north only - the map this is based on is a bit out of date, and the area nw of Macedonia on the map is Montenegro, which would likely be independent - and a much tougher nut to crack than Serbia, given the terrain. Remember, that is a state that was able to stay independent of the Ottomans for a VERY long time due to the terrain.

My objection over how the prince got there has now been removed - you've actually explained it a little now. You may want to expand on that further, however.

Lordganon 03:11, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Wanted to say too - Xeight is due back soon - apparently he went to Greece or something - and may have something to say, so it can't graduate until then.

Lordganon 04:18, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oh god...this will be interesting. Caeruleus 05:13, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

When Xeight comes back, will anybody back me up? Ownerzmcown 11:08, July 22, 2010 (UTC)



Depends on what it is. But quite likely.

I've gone over the map myself - a chunk of Bulgaria was missed - and cleaned up the borders a bit. As it was, there was a fair chunk of bits of territory randomly sticking out, which are harder to defend. Means a bit less of Greece, but more Albania, Montenegro, and Serbia territory. Also added Montenegro too. Fonts are different - couldnt find the one ya used - but this'll be a tad better, I think. Cleaned up the Rhodope borders too, lol.

Maybe make him a bit less likely to fight ya, lol.

Lordganon 12:49, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Wait...you can edit maps AND YOU WERE HOLDING OUT ON ME?! Thanks :/

But yeah, I approve of that map.Though I'm sure Mr. Xeight will still oppose something. If he does, just say his article has nothing to go off of, which is true. Caeruleus 15:42, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

What, you think those maps on my articles appeared from thin air? ;)

Course I can, lol. Always willing to help with that, fyi.

Well, to a certain extent that is true, but I'm sure he has a plan for this somewhere, and some compensation may be in order in such a case. There's some room to move the borders back so just a slight land access to Salonica exists if need be.

Lordganon 16:02, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it doesn't help that he never told us about those plans... Caeruleus 20:05, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

So...after over a week of no further debate on this article, I think this officially qualifies for graduation, according to the existing graduation rules. Caeruleus 01:04, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Still have to ask on the main page and wait like a week, minimum.

Lordganon 01:24, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

So all I have to do is basically just go to the 1983: DD main page and ask to be graduated? Ownerzmcown 01:49, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

If you hadn't made a post about your article there yet, then yes. I thought you already did that. Caeruleus 01:51, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

You have to make the post when you make the article, and when you feel it is ready for graduation, you have to ask if there is any objections, like ya just did. Got to wait after wards, of course, for time for these to be made.

Lordganon 02:28, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

.... I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but have a look at this

[url]http://www.royalfamily.org/family/hrhcpa_bio.htm[/url]

If you look at the articles about his sons linked in the last paragraph for when his sons were born, where, and where they went for elementary school, they at least were in Virgina at DD.

And, logic dictates that their father was with them.

Sorry, I knew I should have googled him before.

Lordganon 05:52, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

I can explain this, Alexander makes constant visits from Spain to the United States at this time, the likelyhood of him having his children in the United States is high, so he probably would have still been living in Spain at the time. Ownerzmcown 07:22, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a source that proves this? Furthermore can we be sure that he was in Spain on Doomsday and not the USA? Mitro 15:55, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but does it really matter that much? After over a month of writing the article where no one bothered to mention this and now he's waiting for graduation and now someone brings this up? And changing it would require him to rewrite the whole article. Just chalk it up to a lost detail of history, make it up, and move on. Caeruleus 16:01, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it does matter. The clearly say we try to make this TL as plausible as possible. Also IMHO, a plausible TL is more valuable than an implausible one. Meanwhile, I have been gone for 2 months, so I was not here when this was being written, but that does not mean my opinion does not matter. Furthemore this is what the graduation process is meant to do. There are so many articles to keep track of people do not always notice them. When someone moves for something to be graduated it gives notice to everybody to check this article out. Mitro 16:13, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he visited Spain often, so it's plausible he was in Spain. You're not going to find a detailed history of his travels, so that's the best assumption you can operate off of. Caeruleus 18:07, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

What about now someone just gives me a list of the remaining plausability problems with my timeline, and I think the bunker issue has been resolved. Ownerzmcown 19:40, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

That's not really explaining, to be honest.

That map should be changed back to the last version - this one makes no sense.

Lordganon 00:28, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia was established earlier than Greece, they would be allowed to take more land from northern greece before the state could be formed, and Albania has no controller as of yet so they would put up no fight to Macedonian forces. Ownerzmcown 01:21, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

But LG...you made it. Though it should control more of northern Greece imo. Caeruleus 02:39, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I made that map. Ownerzmcown 02:41, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed the new map. Macedonia is too large in the current map. All of Albania wouldn't be overrun. They were a fairly weak state that would have had major post-Doomsday difficulties, but some state probably would have survived. And the Greeks had a direct interest in southern Albania (Northern Epirus) because of its large Greek minority. While they may not outright control the area, it would be a point of contention for the Greeks.Caeruleus 03:09, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me the size of Greece is exagerated, first of all, if you compare the amount of land Greece owns on he maps of this page with the official map on the 1983: DD page, you'd see the land Greece owns doesn't border Macedonia at all, or Albania, second, if Albania mattered to Greece don't you think Greece would have already taken it, finally, how would a country as small as Greece be able to operate all those overseas territories while still being able to set up a stable economy and political system, there would obviously be some nationalist movements. Ownerzmcown 04:13, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the states that make up the Greek Confederation would have been established prior to its establishment, obviously.

...that's exactly why on my version it wasnt in the state. And the Greek island of Corfu is near enough to there so it matters.

Expanding further south into Greece is not practical - and as any strategist could tell you, having a chunk of territory sticking out like east of Salonica creates a weak point, and would allow much problems. No statesman would expand their state like that. There was a reason that I made the map with boundaries like I did ;)

I know its not listed anywhere - as far as I know - but it is extremely likely, as a communist capital, that Triana in Albania would have been hit by something.

I'd adjust that Atlantic Community and LoN part of the International Relations, as Greece would likely block both so long as Macedonia holds "sovereign Greek territory"

Greece is not what's up for debate here.

Lordganon 04:15, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Although I will have to change the part about Triana, a lot of the Balkans has ariable farmland and owning that strip of land would hold a strategic point, one having access to both being close with Turkey enough as to not be kinda caught in a circle by Greece, and two, to have a sufficient warning in the case of a Greek two-pronged invasion from the south, a likely idea, and why would Greece even own the area east of that, that port is basically Istanbul which was hit by plenty of nukes to make that piece of land unwantable. Ownerzmcown 04:30, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Greece is exaggerated as a state, nothing is explained about it, and it is virtually impossible for them to control the Turkish Straits, not to mention msot of their territory, since it would be a nuclear wasteland. However, that is all canon, so you have to accept it whether you like it or not. The borders of Greece are very vaguely definied, so controlling a portion of northern Greece is ok imo.

And LG, the reason Macedonia would want to control that part of northern Greece is because its considered part of Greater Macedonia, which would prevail over strategic thinking.

Caeruleus 05:04, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

To stick territory out like that is not militarily logical. Expanding south would put the state into regions too close to active Greek control to be feasible.

If it was a native Macedonian, I may give the "Greater Macedonia" garbage some credit. However, Serbia and its kings recognized Greek control over that area, and truthfully have never held much desire for it. In my book, having Salonica itself is too much, but I'm giving it to you anyway.

Greece is exaggerated, sure - but what is up for debate here is the size of Macedonia, NOT Greece.

Actually, much of the Balkans is mountainous - so any argument for farmland is irrelevant.

In short, I don't care about Greece. But the Macedonian borders on the latest map make no sense, and it cannot graduate as long as they don't.

Honestly, I'm surprised Xeight hasnt complained yet - by what I've seen he's apparently very busy in RL atm - but I suspect he will.

Lordganon 06:32, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I'll size down the strip a bit, but I think I should still own Albania, is that okay LG? Ownerzmcown 12:31, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Its canon that Tirana was destroyed, but even I doubt that Albania would simply collapse so easily and be taken over completely by Macedonia. Mitro 15:29, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Albania was a small country that, like many other Warsaw Pact countries, was completely economically and militarily dependent on the Soviet Union, after the Sovaiet Union receded from Europe, Albania would have no trading partners and likely collapse. Ownerzmcown 15:33, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Albania was not a part of the Warsaw Pact in 1983. They withdrew in 1968 due to the Sino-Soviet split. They were not dependent on the Soviet Union, in fact Alabania learned to become self-sufficient in the 70s and 80s. Mitro 15:35, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Appearantly by this time Albania was in the process of becoming self-sufficient, but it could never completely do so because it had little natural resources and it was one the virge of collapse by 1983, if the capital was nuked, then the chances of Albania remaining stable are slim to none. Ownerzmcown 15:42, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't find information suggesting it was on the verge of collapse. They certainly were beginning the transition to democracy by the 80s, but the collapse would not come until 1992 when the communists were defeated. Furthermore Alabania has enough natural resources to keep them going in the event of Doomsday. The country has deposits petroleum, natural gas, coal, bauxite, copper and iron ore. Furthermore Albania has a large agricultural sector, enough to feed their populace. Finally, I am starting to doubt whether Tirana would be hit. According to this article, the Albanians had their own split with China, which means that the Soviets probably did not attack them like they did China as it has been assumed. Mitro 16:02, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I doubt the country remains stable, think about it, mass hysteria from the nuking and the network of communists who usually support each other regardless of allignment would cause collapse and rioting, besides the government at the time wasn't very popular and stability was still uninsured. Ownerzmcown 16:47, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Mass hysteria certainly did not cause Ireland to collapse in this TL. The mass hysteria argument is too unpredicatable, especially when the nation was not directly hit in Doomsday, which Albania looking like it might not be. Furthermore, communist governments are better placed to survive such a catastrophe than democracies. Local commissars and state police can keep authority by whatever means possible while the central government reestablishes ties and purges any dissent. A few examples of riotors will convince the proles that being hysterical is not good for their health. You point out the government was not popular, but a nuclear war would not change the fact that they still have all the guns. The fear of starvation and being overrun by refugees will keep the people in line. Rationing will likely be set up and though some territory might be lost to refugees, Albania is well-suited to retake those places in later years. In fact Albania might even link up with ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo and Macedonia. Mitro 17:10, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

At the time Albania was under the iron fist dictatorship of Enver Hoxha, he was very unpopular for his use of torture and and state atheism as methods of keeping the people of his country intact, canon states that the Albanian capital city was nuked, he would be living there so he would die, without his leadership the communist party in Albania woyld collapse due to the likelyhood of riots and mass hysteria that would be caused by his almost fascist regime being stopped and police and military people would likely be able to do little against this because a small part of Albania's economy is industry which would cause the military to have little useable arms. And being communist police and military members, they would likely instead become warlords who would try and create their own communist states. In fact, I could right a part of the page where Macedonia fights a war against Albanian warlords over control of former Albania. Ownerzmcown 17:25, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Owning a good chunk of Albania is fine, in my opinion, but not all of it.

Lordganon 07:09, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, even before Yugoslavia was a communist country, the Yugoslav royal family had always wanted to annex Albania into Yugoslavia or simply turn it into a satellite state, I'm very sure that Alexander would jump at the chance to annex all of Albania, if you read the Albania War section, then you'd see that all of Albania was conquered during the war and I'm sure that the populace would enjoy a constitutional monarchy after being ruled by a communist dictatorial oligarchy for a few years. Ownerzmcown 12:56, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Mitro is right. Albania wouldn't simply collapse. Every country would experience mass hysteria and many countries had unpopular dictatorships that survived post-Doomsday. Albania would have been able to secure itself and fend off invasion simply because it would be more stable and organized than anyone around them for years. At best, Macedonia would be able to take over eastern border regions, which Albania would have lost control of due to refugees and bandits. And just because you want Albania, doesn't mean you would be able to take it. If any resemblence of an Albanian government survived post-Doomsday, they would be able to defeat Macedonia. And countries don't welcome a foreign democracy to rule over them, even if they have a dictatorship themselves. Nationalism is too great. Caeruleus 14:55, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

What if I make it so Albania is a Macedonian-occupied client state called the Republic of Albania, but Macedonia will still get a portion of northern and eastern Albania? Ownerzmcown 15:19, August 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * You are forgetting that this is the Balkans. People don't like each other there (I should know). The Albanians are not going to like being ruled by a Serb. OTL we have seen this has not worked with Kosovo. No matter how bad their government is, people rather be ruled by one of them rather than a foreigner.
 * As for Tirana being destroyed, you are right it is canon. But canon can be changed if it conflicts with older canon or is so implausible that its damages the TL. IMO, having a city destroyed that shouldn't have been meets the second prong of the test. Of course I would leave that up for the community to decide. Mitro 15:42, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, at the time multiple countries in the Balkans, mainly Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria, were members of the Non-Alligned Movement, each were coming closer together and to democracy, in fact people contemplated Yugoslavia merging with Bulgaria due likely to ethnic similarities. The people at the time were also very unwelcoming to the communist dictators that ruled them, they tried to use force to employ nationalism and tortured, arrested, killed, or expulsed anyobdy who didn't comply willingly. I'm sure that the people of the Balkans after such a horrible event as Doomsday would welcome order and protection from raiders and being given a choice of the country they live in and the religion they're allowed to practice. Ownerzmcown 20:55, August 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Really the Balkans? There has always plans to unite them, and most were failures, Yugoslavia being torn about by ethnic strife is an obvious example. Even Doomsday wouldn'nt change this. In fact the fight over dwindling resources would excentuate these problems. Why help the other guy when you don't have enough to feed your own? That question has caused more wars in human history than i care to think about. A unified Balkans makes as much sense as a unified Caucasus or Greece/Turkey alliance.
 * Furthermore, Albania and Bulgaria were never a member of the non-alligned movement. In fact bulgaria was still a member of the Warsaw Pact in 1983. They certainly picked a side. Mitro 21:22, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Really, look at this Ownerzmcown 21:39, August 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * What does that prove? I never denied that there was plan to unite Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, I just said it was meritless. Also that information confirms what I said above: only Yugoslavia was a member of the non-aligned movement. The information you gave me said Albania was isolationist (which I believe I mentioned already) and it says nothing about Bulgaria being part of the non-alligned movement. In fact it only says that Bulgaria backed the communists in Greece. A look at Bulgaria's history shows it was firmly in the Soviet camp until the fall of the Soviet Union. Mitro 22:38, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Mitro is right Ownerzmcown. Macedonia wouldn't be able to control Albania. At most, Macedonia's borders would include Macedonia, southwest Bulgaria, southern Serbia, eastern Albania, and northern Greece. More of Albania is unrealistic. Caeruleus 22:38, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Owner, you're misreading that, its saying that Yugoslavia was a member of the movement, not Bulgaria or Albania.

And Bulgaria is out, remember that. I've shut up about the objections I have with the Prince himself in return for my way, if you didn't notice.

Lordganon 22:50, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

What do you guys think of the new map? Ownerzmcown 22:52, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

You still control too much of Albania imo. And that portion of northern Greece that just jets out looks weird. Macedonia could control more of central Greece, less of Albania, and part of Bulgaria. This is still the most plausible map imo.

Also, LG, your objections about controlling Bulgarian territory still don't make sense. There's no reason they can't control parts of Bulgaria up to the Rhodopan border. And the Prince returning is plausible, or at least acceptable when compared to other similar events in this ATL. Caeruleus 23:19, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Is Athens nuked? BoredMatt 23:31, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

First, yes Matt because it was the capital of a NATO country, and two, what do you guys think of this one? It shows more of Serbia because Alexander was was a Serb. Ownerzmcown 23:34, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oh hey I solved the mystery; you're a Slavic-jingoist that wants "Unified Yugoslavia" extending from Constantinople to Slovenia. It was the "Alexander was was a Serb" that gave it away, by the way. Mr.Xeight 00:02, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Mr.Xeight, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, I don't have any idea what a Slavic-jingoist, I honestly couldn't give a crap about Yugoslavia since its a dead country, I don't know where Slovenia is, the Alexander was a Serb thing is just a coincidence, Constantinople is now called Istanbul, I only knew who Alexander was when I started writing this article a few months ago, I'm just trying to get my first article canon to feel more as part of the wiki, and finally, ' YOU ARE TOTALLY CRAZY!!!! 'Ownerzmcown 00:17, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

No need to be rude Ownerzmcown. Though Mr. Xeight, that also rude and unnecessary.

And that the new map doesn't work either Ownerzmcown. That shows it controlling too much of Serbia. Some resemblance of government in northern Serbia, around Belgrade, would probably remain since Yugoslavia wasn't nuked. Also, I can't believe I just thought of this, but you're shown to control all of Kosovo. Kosovo would probably either be independent or exist in a union with Albania. Unfortuantely, I still think the map I posted previously is the most realistic.Caeruleus 02:43, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

It says in the Albania war part of my article that Macedonia pulled a right hook around Albania and attacked in the north, don't you think that, one, they would likely also occupy this area, and two, annex it to have access to the western mediterranean, they beat Albania anway, they'd have to pretty much give them that at least. Ownerzmcown 04:01, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. We're staying that such a conflict is implausible. Albania would be self-sufficient, relatively stable, and possibly not nuked. Therefore, it would easily be a stronger state than Macedonia or at least be its equal, so no war resulting in such an annexation would occur. Also, keep in mind, such a war can always occur in the future ;) Caeruleus 04:44, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider it logical for him to be in Spain, let alone get from there to Macedonia - my opinion is that he was in Virginia with his kids.

Irregardless, that map is not plausible.

And as previously noted, the Bulgarian border is not for debate - I will not let this graduate with one inch of Bulgarian territory included in this state.

Lordganon 04:54, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Confederation of Greece
The Federation of Greece did not exist until 2009. Calling it the federation in the history before that time is technically incorrect. Mitro 02:28, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I miscalculated how often it was in the article. Mitro 02:33, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the Confederation, I have a few problems with this article... Mr.Xeight 23:58, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * One: it refers to Greeks in Macedonia as "invaders".
 * Two: Greece would have fought to get Thessaloniki back, so I'd like to ask the creator of this article to move the border north.
 * Three: Skopia is and was a Third-World Country; how exactly did it create a Balkan empire? Even if Greece (a First World country, though in the 1980s probably high in the second) was bombed, I think it'd be able to push back Slavic invaders.
 * The League of Nations and Atlantic Defense Community would also back Greece in this conflict, so even if by the power of the most honourable-ASBs Skopia could take down Greece, the international community would push them out.
 * I say this time and time again, I find it insulting to not be consulted about my sphere-of-influence when someone else writes an article on it.

As much as I haven't worked on this the last months, I agree with Mr.Xeight. I'm sorry if you think that mine is an unwanted intervention, but what he says is too. Fedelede 02:26, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with Mr. Xeight unfortunately. To respond because I'm bored: Caeruleus 02:39, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Macedonians hate Greeks, so that's not a surprise that they'd be called "invaders."
 * 2) No map or anything in your article indicates Greek control of Thessaloniki, so there's nothing stopping another state from claiming it. Also, much of northern Greece would be devestated due to Soviet/Bulgarian-Greek conflict along the border. And Greece would be in disarray for years following the strikes, so it is conceivable that Macedonia, or another post-Doomsday state, could seize control of the area.
 * 3) Everyone was nuked. Once you get nuked, you pretty much a third world country, so Macedonia would be even with anyone immediately post-Doomsday. And technically, Macedonia, and the rest of Yugoslavia, was considered part of the Second World. And Greece would have too many internal issues to push back the Macedonians. Not to mention too small of a population to fight any sustained warfare.
 * 4) Neither the LoN or ADC would send military forces to drive the Macedonians out. They would give you political support at most and all states within both organizations wouldn't support Greece. There would be others, such as possibly SAC, who would support Macedonia, or at least oppose Greece. Political support wouldn't defeat the Macedonians.
 * 5) People asked for your opinion weeks ago. I was told you were out of the country or something, but you were asked nonetheless.

I don't think you should complain about Greece's sistuation Xeight. If any nation has created a Balkan empire, its Greece. I think that Greece would be more affected by Doomsday, seeing as there were many more impacts on Greek territory (exacerbated by the nature of the Greek landscape). I think the Greeks can afford to let Macedonia keep it's Greek territory. After all, it is basically the only nation to have a real empire after Doomsday. If it didn't mean a long and strenuous review process, I would say that Greece is the implausible article here, as why would the Greeks give a damn about the Turks, Egyptians or Libyans? Okay I can get the Turks, but the other two requires expensive voyages across the Mediteranean.

Yankovic270 02:59, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Macedonians think, this is an article supposed to be written by people from a neutral perspective. It's true that everyone's a Third World country, but some are rebuilding themselves because they're able to make contact with the outside and prosper. But, I suppose the content above is right, really; I planned on Greece moving south and that's what I did; there's no possible way they could get Northern Greece because of the radioactive mountains; Macedonia is in a better position to take Thessaloniki than Greece, but I'd like to ask why they want it; it's radioactive and burnt to a crisp. I could Macedonian soldiers building a small base there and both nations claiming it, but I think any plans for a new city built over the old ones are ASB. Not that it matters, but you have my blessing for Macedonia to move into Northern Greece, but I'd know why they want its mountainous, radioactive, probably riddled with people who haven't contacted anyone else in the outside world since 1983, curse.

Yank the Greeks got the Suez people the LoN needed a friendly nation to administer it because Sicily was getting rowdy, the Moreos colonize Libya because it was seen as easy pickings and they couldn't expand north due to radioactive-Athens, and if you have any problems bring it up on the talk page and we'll all discuss it there. It's not that far from Greece to North Africa, I mean there are still modern ships that weren't destroyed because of DD the Moreos could deploy. Remember, the Moreon-ruling party is pretty sinister, they just have the good name of the Federation to hide behind and are letting up their fascistic ways due to pressure from the other states. The Moreos is the black-sheep of the Federation, they're motivated by creating some Greek empire with ideas from high-points in Greece's past as a base.
 * As an aside, I think it's time I completely move on from 1983:Doomsday; show me a person who's interested in Greek culture and expanding more on my old ideas for the Federation and I'll gladly hand it over to them.

Mr.Xeight 04:49, August 12, 2010 (UTC)