Talk:Die Sonne geht im Reich nie unter...

Ok, one big problem - Britain would never give up its African possessions (esspecially not South Africa, which was a dominion at the time), nor would Germany be able to take them. There is a good reason why Germany's African colonies fell so quickly, which is that they where poorly defended. Germany could have them returned, and gained some French colonies and possibly the Belgian Congo, but no more than that. Also, could you use a darker colour on your maps; the bright yellow makes seeing the borders difficult. --Sikulu 10:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed all the maps to red on my computer to help with the borders, but it'll take a while for me to upload them here.--Tabun1015 01:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think this would be more realistic?--Tabun1015 03:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be much more realistic (loose Chad and restore the bits labled with "Neukamerun" in this map to their former colonies though). The bright red doesn't help much with the maps though (by darker colour, I ment more like mustard rather than light yellow. Try green instead). --Sikulu 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. IMO, that map is actually the most plausible of all of them. How on Earth would Germany manage to conquer both Iran and Afghanistan? (Mind you, pro-German governments would be a bit more realistic) Not to mention areas in the Americas? (The US wouldn't have allowed it anyway.) The Italian colonies are more plausible.
 * Any way, why would Germany choose to punish Britain, or even care about Ireland? It saw the UK as a rival, not as an enemy like France or Russia. --Sikulu 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Territories held after the First World War and the 20's

 * I think I'll take your suggestion and forget about Afghanistan (which really has few natural resources that would be coveted by an empire), and focus on Persia (which has oil that any empire needs). I think that possession of Persia and Chad would be plausible.  France had it's own home territory occupied during the First World War (especially in the timeline I've established).  I think that they would be eager to trade some colonies for getting their own home territory back.  I also think Germany could take Persia and establish at least tenuous control over all the territories indicated on the maps.  After the war, Germany would have at its disposal not only its own troops and resources, but those of the Austro-Hungarian empire, which it absorbed.  Ottoman troops and resources would probably also be used, as the Ottoman government was in no position to refuse the Germans, and as the only territory bordering Persia, they would be the only ones who would stand to lose anything if the Persians managed to successfully shake off the German onslaught.
 * Even if these territories were too much for Germany to establish firm control, if Germany "bites off more than it can chew" so to speak in terms of African colonies and Persia, that will help them discover quickly what they can and cannot control, along with giving them much experience in how to control it, and they will make fewer mistakes later on when they receive more territory after the Second World War. In the 40's I have planned for Germany to begin gradual decolonization to reduce the strain of maintaining a huge empire, and focus on releasing their colonies and instead establishing stable, friendly, and politically close countries, as Britain did with Canada and Australia.  This should make their colonial empire more plausible.

Territories held after the Second World War

 * As for the huge increase in colonies, including possessions in the Americas, Germany doesn't receive those until after the Second World War. I think that all of the territory assembled after that war could be plausible.  Considering the almost unbelievable military victories that Germany was able to achieve in our timeline on two continents and three fronts in the beginning of the Second World War, after being defeated in the First World War and having to submit to crippling terms (reparations and a sharply reduced military), I think it is absolutely plausible for Germany to achieve and retain much, much more (if they're shrewd) in a timeline where they won the First World War.  They would have a steady stream of reparations money flowing in (which in turn would weaken the main Allied nations, Britain and France).  Their military establishment would be unchecked, unlike those of Britain and France, which by treaty would be limited.  They would have the benefit of resources coming in from their colonies (including oil from Arabia and Persia).  These colonies would also serve as bases to increase German power projection.  By controlling Arabia and Djibouti and knocking out the British presence in Yemen and Egypt early in the war, they would have complete control over the Suez Canal, enabling them to very quickly shuttle troops from the European theater to the African and Pacific theaters, and vice versa, while at the same time denying the enemy the same.  They would have the benefit of the United States not having fought a war since the Spanish American War, along with a still strong tendency towards isolationism, which would make their officers and NCOs (even the top brass) inexperienced and less well trained, and thereby make the US less of a military threat.  Plus, their campaigns in the 20's conquering and then governing restive populations would give them a brand new generation of soldiers with combat experience (especially experience and knowledge of low level guerilla tactics, which could prove useful in a war of attrition), something that the Allies will not have.  Also, 19 years will have elapsed since the First World War.  This will give Germany a totally new generation of soldiers who have grown up with a German colonial empire and all the ramifications thereof, and who have a sense of duty to fight for the empire.  They will be trained by and fight under NCOs who are veterans of the 20's campaigns, and be led by generals who fought in the First World War and the 20's campaigns.  This experience will be invaluable.  History has shown that a small, highly trained and well equipped force can hold its own with a large, poorly trained  and poorly equipped one.  Britain is the perfect example.  It has never had a large army, but has had a highly trained one, and that allowed them to conquer and govern a worldwide empire.  Since Germany has a larger population than Britain (a population which will probably be larger in this timeline than in our real timeline due to colonization of Africa), that will give them more soldiers who are still also highly trained and experienced.

Irish significance

 * Now for Ireland, I think that German support of Irish independence is plausible because every nation needs allies. Since the seeds of Irish indepence were smouldering during the First World War, if Germany helped support that they would gain an ally right on Britain's doorstep.  Germany could negotiate for the use of bases in Ireland if they were to ever go to war with Britain, which the Irish would accept because, however much indirect support they receive from Germany in terms of training and armament, they alone wouldn't be a match for Britain.  All of this would be achieved without having to physically conquer and subdue the territory, which limits German expense.

Hatred of Great Britain

 * As for Britain, I think that there would be hatred there. We saw how we called the Germans "huns" in the First World War and considered them to be monsters, and slapped humiliating terms on them with the Treaty of Versailles.  This feeling was undoubtedly mutual, and would carry over after the war.  I doubt that a nation which had lost almost an entire generation of men, husbands and sons and fathers, in a war with another country wouldn't consider that country to be an enemy.--Tabun1015 16:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, why isn't red a good color? The borders stand out very clearly.--Tabun1015 17:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)