Talk:Kingdom of Prussia (1983: Doomsday)

Berlin
Its generally been a long accepted part of canon that Berlin and Frankfurt were hit by nukes, and the nuke map (though incomplete) suggests other cities in West and East Germany were hit as well. Even with the close proximity of the Iron Curtain, I don't think both sides would avoid using nukes in German territory. Mitro 13:01, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I couldn't find any mention of Berlin being hit, but Frankfurt being hit was part of the article, as was Dresden, Bonn, Hamburg, Munich, etc. I was thinking of adding Strausberg, which was the headquarters of East German military, and Rostock which was the center of their Navy. But both sides had considerable forces in Berlin, so I would doubt it being a target. Berlin might be affected by the fallout from Strausberg depending on the wind. I just find it unrealistic for every major city in the northern hemisphere to be hit by nukes. According to released cold war nuclear war plans in the last few years many cities such as Vienna were targeted by only a single nuke, and most nations had interceptor squadrons and anti-ballistic missile defences. Targets would also be chosen for their strategic importance, making cities like Saskatoon, while populous, unlikely targets. Not every major city would be a target.--Oerwinde 16:21, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * How successful those interceptor squardrons and anti-missiles is questionable at best, but admittedly your arguments for Berlin not being targeted makes sense. I guess my biggest concern is to avoid articles where people have cities or bases survive simply so that they could create their most favored alternate nation, ignoring the fact that in all likelihood they would be targetted.  I do agree with you that population size doesn't always mean it will be target (look at the targets I chose in the  article), but that doesn't mean that factor isn't persuasive.  Still I find your argument sound for Berlin and I would have those other targets added because they seem to be likely targets.  Mitro 16:59, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Nordic Union
The only thing I don't like about the article is the Nordic Union's treatment of Prussia. They (especially the Danish) are grade-A douchebags. I understand why the Prussians took Pomerania. It was historically part of Prussia before its forming the unified nation of Germany, and Prussia had been the victim of an unprovoked attack by the Poles. And the expelling of the Poles was to get back at the Poles for expelling Gemans after they took the territory. And when Kaiser Christian-Sigmund I came to Dennmark to try to retore reasonable relations, he made nothing but consessions and what did the ungrateful Danes do? Demand more! I have never read about a nation so intentionally uncooperative and greedy. --Yankovic270 16:12, September 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * They may have been willing to negotiate that point but Christian was so enraged by the initial demand that he closed down negotiations then and there and came home. The negative relations between Prussia and the Danes are now mostly tied directly to Christian, and when he dies and his son becomes king relations will improve dramatically.--Oerwinde 18:57, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Graduation
Oerwinde: do you think your article is ready to be graduated? Mitro 19:01, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good if theres no objections.--Oerwinde 22:02, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't see why not. I love anything to do with Germany. --Yankovic270 22:07, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Problem with article
I am sorry, but Germany, besides the United States and the Soviet Union, is going to get hit the WORST. The main reason for this is that most of NATO's and the Warsaw Pact forces were deployed within Germany, or just outside of it, or at least those who would operate in the European theatre. West Germany itself made up the largest portion of European NATO. As a result, West Germany is going to get pummeled by Soviet nuclear weapons, as is East Germany. Berlin WOULD be hit, more because of the MAD doctrine then anything. Because it would have to be assumed that Berlin was going to fall, especially since NATO was unprepared for the Soviet attack, they would deny the city to the enemy. As a result, it would cease to exist. Typical plans involve multiple hit on Berlin, in the case that one or more were to fail. The resulting fall-out would kill millions. If you do disagree, you have to remember the NATO-nuclear weapon sharing program, in which the United States would base their nuclear weapons in other countries for that nations use. At the time, those involved would be Greece, Canada, Britain, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Turkey, and Germany. Most of these were deployed in Germany, based on it being the closest to the fight, and therefore the quickest to reach its targets. Therefore, again, Germany is hit HARD. That, and you have nuclear warheads going off in shelters that have not yet been deployed, creating terrible fallout. It is just as likely that NATO would have suspected Soviet nukes to be stationed in East Germany, and would hit them extremely hard as well. As a result, I find the existence of ANY German state in the area near impossible at best. Lahbas 04:01, September 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked on the internet and I couldn't find anything detailing NATO's nuclear war plans. However in my search I stumbled across "Seven Days to the River Rhine". It depicted the Soviet bloc's vision of a seven-day atomic war between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces. The map of nuclear targets is surprisingly accurate to what is written in this page (apart from a few small inconsistencies).--ShutUpNavi 15:53, September 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that it says SEVEN DAY WAR. This is a document displaying a limited atomic war with NATO, in which the objective is trying to simply destabilize the others hold in the region. Notice there are not attacks upon the Soviet Union itself, nor on the nuclear powers of France and the United Kingdom. I have seen this map before as well, and I agree under different circumstances you would be correct. As long as the Soviet Union itself was not attacked, it would not initiate the MAD doctrine, and neither would NATO. However, because the Soviet Union is directly attacked with nuclear weapons (or so they believe), then the opposite becomes true. I am sorry, but Germany in this world would become a nuclear wasteland. Lahbas 16:44, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

Well if that's the case then unless someone can find any resion why that would not happen I think we can tag this page as obsolete. The only thing I have to say is its just depressing to know that the Americans/Germans wouldn't think twice about killing there own people. But if that's what they would have done how can we argue with that. --ShutUpNavi 19:13, September 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * That is why MAD is called MAD, its mad. Lahbas 20:07, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just the Americans and Germans, Navi -- it was the Russians, as well. Be grateful that we're not in that time.  Sure, we have our own problems, but the threat of nuclear death is not as close as it used to be. Louisiannan 21:07, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

I think we should at least give Oerwinde a chance to say something in defense since he was the principal author of the article. Mitro 22:54, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * The only info I've been able to find was the soviets pulling their nukes out of East Germany in 1959, and Jimmy Carter altering the MAD doctrine in 1980 with Presidential Directive 59 to avoid hitting population centers and instead focus on leadership and military targets. Theres a surprising lack of info out there on which areas would have been targeted during a nuclear war.--Oerwinde 07:51, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Excue me for saying this, but why didn't you voice your concerns BEFORE it was made canon? It has been agreed apon that this IS part of the established history of 1983: Doomsday, and as such has allready started to mesh with other articles in the timeline. It has become a major part of the history of Europe. And I think the US barely had time to send a strike on the Soviet Union, let alone a whole insane plan. Please leave Gemany alone and take your negative, glass empty atitude elsewhere. --Yankovic270 01:08, October 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't be attacking me on established facts. I don't pay attention to everything that goes on, and I also have real-life problems that must be dealt with beforehand. I wasn't sure where the Kingdom of Prussia was going from the start, so I wasn't exactly sure at the time what to say about it. It actually developed rather quickly, and before I knew it, there was a massive article of information. It was really when I saw the map and the areas involved within the Kingdom that I knew it would not have historically worked. I do not like the facts, but they force me to say what is fact; that a German state CANNOT exist in the lands of the two Germanies. I do not like making a motion to make the article obsolete. In all honesty, I loved the story, and creativity, and the hard work that went into its final form. But, in the end, it doesn't fit in the realm of realism, which this timeline demands. Lahbas 01:20, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yankovic I have warned you before about personal attacks. Lahbas is right, there are a lot of proposals and discussions going on in this TL and sometimes people can't get to them all and raise objections.  Furthermore, even if something is canon it can still be made obsolete if an editor brings up a valid reason to do so.  We strive to make a plausible nuclear war scenario and Lahbas is trying to do just that while your additude only slows that progress.  Unless you have an actual counter-argument based on the merits of Lahbas' objection then I suggest staying out of this.  I will not tolerate anymore personal attacks.  Mitro 02:00, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Personally, i can imagine a free city of berlin, undr the protection of the four powers that occupied it. however, anything as extensive as a "Kingdom of Prussia" would be unlikely in post doomsday germany, what with all the nukes. i agree with Lahab's, although, like i have said, i would find an independent Berlin more pausible. --HAD 13:01, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats essentially what it was. Its just that with Berlin itself had a population larger than many of the full on nations in this TL, and were able to take control of a larger area. --Oerwinde 15:24, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

but that population needs food. how reliable would the supply be in a post nuclear war zone, in an area full of NATO and warsaw pact soldiers in the same situatuion? --HAD 15:27, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence why they secured Pomerania, which except for Stettin and Rostock was mostly rural.--Oerwinde 15:42, October 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but even "if" Berlin wasn't hit, which I largely doubt, the resulting fallout from either the East or the West would kill millions, and would irradiate the arable lands around it for at least one generation. There isn't any place in Germany that is protected from a fatal douse of radiation. Also, in reagards to the Soviet pulling their nukes out in 1959, did they inform the United States? Otherwise, they would have had to assume that they were still stationed there. Lahbas 16:57, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Under Presidential Directive 59, I doubt much of East Germany other than Strausberg and Rostock would be hit, as there were few other major military targets, and the article holds to that. With Strausberg gone, the military leadership of East Germany would be crippled, and with significant allied forces already in Berlin, would open up the city for and allied conventional attack, with reinforcements from outside, which is in line with the new strategy. Obviously reinforcements wouldn't have happened, but with allied forces and a civilian uprising, the city could be taken. With the situation winnable, I don't see the allies nuking Berlin, and with the Soviets considering it their territory, I don't see the soviets nuking it. I can concede that the population of Prussia could be lowered with increased effects of fallout, but the allied missiles were smaller yield and more precise than the soviet ones which would result in less fallout in East Germany, and Prussia is made up of mostly northern East Germany and Polish Pomerania. I don't see Stettin being nuked either for the same reasons as Berlin, and the rest is mostly rural as well until you hit Gdansk. I would also edit the article to inclue Bremen as a target for the reason you stated in the bit about a North Sea german state, but would keep Kiel surviving as I don't see the Soviets just launching all their missiles and sitting back waiting to die, they would also be fighting this to win, and the Kiel Canal would be a strategic location to capture rather than destroy.--Oerwinde 17:40, October 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, you might be right on Kiel, but I am still iffy on the idea of Berlin not being nuked, which seemse incredibly unrealistic in a MAD situtation, which I will actually explain to you right now.


 * Military Installations would be the priority over population centers, so we'll look here in regards to areas that affect East Germany. Air bases that would be hit are Juterborg, Alt Daber (a massive Soviet Airbase not far from Wittstock), Schlotheim, Schönwalde, Schweinitz, Schönhauser Damm, Sperenberg, Stendal, Strausberg (HQ of the East German Air Force), Sülte, Welzow, Brandis, and Tutow. There would be more, but I can't read German. Anway, these are the principal airfields in Germany that would be nuked (out of 47 that were operational at the time). I included Strausberg, despite not being Soviet since it would be in the interest of NATO to try and prevent a coordinated strategy of that nation's Air Force. There were also other airbases that could be hit, like Schonefield, just because of the possibility that the Soviet Union could transition them to Air Bases, or use them as refueling stations for fighters and bombers.


 * Then there are the HQs of the land-based Soviet Army. These include Dresden, Furstenburg/Havel, Magdeburg, Nohra, and Eberswalde-Finnow. Again, there are many other places that could be hit, but I cannot read German.


 * Stettin, however, will be hit, for much the same reason as Newport News in the United States would be hit. The city is famous for constructing many of the vessels included in the Soviet Navy, and so it would become a priority target, specifically its shipyards. Even if not hit, I am pretty sure that one of the airbases I listed is awfully close to the city. Lahbas 21:11, October 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think theres a misunderstanding about MAD here. MAD is a deterrence doctrine, not a war plan. Its not just "BOMB EVERYTHING" its simply a philosophy that "they can't destroy us because we can destroy them too". Its still structured by a war plan. And in 1980 the US started to move away from the MAD doctrine. Conventional forces were still a major part of a nuclear war, and nuking everything would make it hard for conventional forces to fight. The map shown above is valid, as when nuking Denmark, Belgium, Poland, West Germany and the Netherlands, you're already past MAD. I find it hard to believe that all the targets you named would have had a nuke aimed at them, especially when Russia would have been the primary target. I will give you Stettin though.


 * Is there any way to provide the source you're getting this from. I'm finding it incredibly frustrating finding info on the web and it would be nice to be on equal footing here.--Oerwinde 08:24, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

to put it bluntly, the kingdom of prussia is unviable. a smaller state centered around berlin and the surrounding countryside (food production) would be a better idea. idea, in my opinion. --HAD 08:07, October 2, 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact is that MAD is the theoretical basis for this TL. Whether or not it was the war plan most likely to be used, the idea that most of Europe was wiped out is the basic parameter within which 1983DD operates.  [EDIT]  The main problem I have with the page is general rather than specific.  One of the central themes of 1983DD has been that the superpowers and great powers have been removed from the playing field.  There ought not be any major world powers in Western Europe.  THere's been a lot of loving work done on the small nations of survivors (Celtic Alliance, Friesland, the French states, etc etc), but all with the understanding that these are not large nations, and are not huge players on the world stage.  A great big German-Polish nation centered on Berlin contradicts that picture. Benkarnell 02:59, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * I would hardly say a country that takes up maybe an 8th of modern germany that managed to take on some ragtag remnants of an army that was the butt of jokes for decades is a superpower.--Oerwinde 08:51, October 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it was a superpower. I did say it was a large nation that's a player on the world stage, which I think accurately describes Prussia as it is currently on this page.  And jokes aren't exactly accurate sources of information.  This thing just seems too big.  I'm also concerned that the Communist system, which took East Germany *here* a good decade or more to grow out of, is handwaved a little too easily.  Benkarnell 12:46, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

even if berlin wasn't hit, the destruction of other major german cities under MAD would make Prussia an unlikely prospect, combined with the problem of refugees. --HAD 12:42, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Just to see where everyone is on the issue of Prussia, please vote in this poll:

What do you think should be done with Prussia? Keep, as is Keep, but modify Reject, not plausible


 * I believe that it's never necessary to throw anything out (the German nationalists in Mecca being one rare exception). In this case, the important thing to keep in mind is that Germany was not only full of nuclear targets, it was full of conventional troops of various nationalities that would have ended up running this way and that in the aftermath. It all adds up to a lot of chaos,, starvation, and all the other things that make 1983DD a really crappy universe to find yourself in.  Those kinds of circumstances lead people to adopt strange ways, and the idea of a Hohenzollern revival is definitely not impossible to imagine.   Plus, we history types love our monarchies, as evidenced by Hawaii, Bermuda, Cleveland, the Neth. Antilles, and various other new realms in this TL.  No reason to reject the main premise.  It's just too big to appear in what may be the hardest-hit country on Earth.  Shrink it way down, then expand it slightly to allow for gradual growth over time, and it should be fine, IMHO.  Benkarnell 21:51, October 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, how about this for edits: Alter the timeline, most of the 20 years of the history were spent establishing themselves in Berlin and the rural areas to the north, east of Rostock. Border skirmishes all during that time with Polish remnants, as neither had the resources to engage in a full scale war. Eventually things were stabilized, food was being produced, and a decent military force was established, trained by the surviving allied and east german troops in Berlin. Around 2004 Christian decides to make good on his promise to retake Prussian lands and leads a blitzkrieg on Poznan or whatever the new Polish capital will be. With the strike focused on one target the amount of troops required won't be as much as the initial history of occupying polish Pomerania during the war. War takes only a couple of weeks as fighting border skirmishes for 20 years left the Polish thinking Prussia was as bad off as them. Gets Pomerania in the peace deal, making the conquest and expulsion order more recent events, making the bad relations with the Nordic Union more realistic.Prussiaproposedborders.png


 * Heres an image with the proposed new borders. Dark blue is what is actually owned by Prussia, under their control and recognized. Area east of the Polish border would not have been added until 2004, making their controlled territory much more realistc. Light blue would be what Prussia claims. Basically lands east of the river Elbe.


 * One of the bonuses to altering this as well, is it makes room for the proposed North Sea german state to coexist. With possible conflict erupting from Prussian claims on Southern Schleswig and Holstein.--Oerwinde 07:09, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

this sounds much more reasonable. --HAD 09:57, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * I like this a lot. And by 2004, things are just plain different enough that it;'s much easier to imagine Prussia attacking Polish lands and getting away with it successfully.  Benkarnell 13:09, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also be more supportive of this. Mitro 14:14, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Just needed to point out something. Unfortunately Peenemünde and Rügen both had East German military basses on them. This would render most of the German Baltic Sea Coastline you have here uninhabitable.--70.242.127.83 16:32, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * The bases are far enough apart and the allies used smaller yield bombs than the soviets as they were more precise so while the areas around the bases would be destroyed, most of the coastline would be intact.--Oerwinde 21:23, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Thats inconvenient. --HAD 08:19, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding Berlin, even if not hit with a nuclear weapon, I think that there would be a general consensus on the fact that it would quickly become uncontrollable and lawless as refugees from other cities and the countryside came for aid. Similar factors arose in Aroostook within Augusta. Considering that we are talking about a city with millions of people, excluding any additional refugees, such a process will only occur more swiftly. Also, I am not sure that there will be a military force established within the area, or at least one that is organized, that can dislodge Polish settlement of Pomenaria, at least to the extent that you propose. The poles would have the benefit of fighting within their own homeland, and make any efforts on the part of the Prussians to colonize it hellish, if not immpossible. Lahbas 04:58, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

And I still think there's no clearexplanation of what happened to the Communist system. Remember that the East wasn't just a political regime that could be done away with after a coup - it was a whole way of life and work and exchange that had become farly deeply ingrained, and which many people were actually attached to. In OTL, the 1990s were a time of difficult adjustment in the east. In Prussia, Communism would be even more difficult to cst aside because there would be no capitalist abundance to provide incentives to transition to a free market. I think it could be interesting to see a country that's abandoned the ideology of Communism nd accepted a monarch, but which stil embraces the command economy. Benkarnell 21:13, October 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Berkanell, though I did not realize that the Communist movement was so powerful in East Germany. The Communists were not a force that could be pushed aside, and would never accept a Monarchist state. Even if it an assembly did manage to pass such a reform, the likelehood of an uprising would be almost total, and the state would fall into complete anarchy, as there would be support even among the wings of the nations military and law enforcement. Lahbas 03:36, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * West Berlin had a larger population, so if the state is centered on Berlin, the capitalists would outnumber the communists. And while the more rural areas of East Germany would be more likely to favor communism, the urban areas would be the parts most oppressed and more likely to embrace change, especially with their proximity to West Berlin. Also, on the refugee issue: The Berlin Wall. West Berlin is completely surrounded in a wall, this could be integral to the stability of the state. Perhaps after the East and West berliners rise up against the soviets in East Berlin, the wall stays mostly intact, as with the world ending around people, tearing down the wall isn't as important as a symbolic act. When the refugees start overcoming East Berlin, the remaining troops fall back into west Berlin. Obviously it would take a while to stabilize the area, but with remaining allied and east german troops training conscripts in the walled off West Berlin in order to establish order in East Berlin its not inplausible. We could move back the timeline again, to have the Berlin government recently establishing its German borders from the updated map, and the war with Poland could be something that happened within this year, or something that will happen soon.--Oerwinde 04:26, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Another note in regards to the communism/capitalism debate. Socialsm makes sense in the current world order. So I think it realistic, that while the dominant West Berlin would adopt a democratic republic style government, parties advocating a socialist economy would likely be in power. I agree that a Social Royalist party would be interesting.--Oerwinde 04:30, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Another response regarding Polish expulsion and German colonization: The expulsion is supposed to be a huge mistake and a large cost to the Prussian government. It may have been downplayed in the original article, but it shouldn't have been. While the polish civilians were ill equipped to take on the trained Prussian troops, the troops were heavily outnumbered and there were heavy losses on either side. Think of it like the current situation in Israel/Palestine, only to a slightly lesser degree due to there not being the religious aspect to inflame it more, and the poles having more numbers. Also in the updated timeline I plan for it to be the first event leading to Christian's abdication and his son taking the throne. The 2nd event would be bungling the diplomatic trip to the Nordic Union. If both Prussia and North Germany are accepted, the 3rd would be his hostility towards North Germany and refusal to accept their claims on the Slesvig/Holstein region. As the idea of a unified Germany had been abandoned, the people are unwilling to fight with another German state. His approval takes a huge hit from these 3 events and Parliament forces his abdication.--Oerwinde 04:42, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

A Solicist Monarcy with its origins in west berlin sounds like a good idea. --HAD 12:37, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

I have two things to ask.

1. Who is the Chancellor?

2. Would it be interesting if a German refugee in Denmark went Guy Fawkes over the diplomatic mission?

--Yankovic270 01:11, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * 1:No idea, never thought of it. Suggestions?
 * 2:As in try to blow up parliament? Danish or German?--Oerwinde 01:28, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Danish, because of anger over the "talks". And with an explosive much more reliable than black powder, he might succeed. With the same bomb he uses to blow up parliament, he commits suicide. This idea may spring from the fact that I had purchased a V costume, and have the movie. And I have ideas for two Chancellors. The first and the current.

First:Richard von Weizsäcker

Current:Klaus Wowereit

--Yankovic270 01:41, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Prussia 2.0
So what do people think of the new version of the article Oerwinde created? Is it acceptable for canon? Mitro 02:20, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

sounds much better. --217.179.116.58 13:23, October 20, 2009 (UTC)