Alternative History
Advertisement
See Also: Discussion Archive

Another idea.[]

People here seem to think that refugee convoys and such are unrealistic because no one has the means to fund or organize them. I say, why do they need to be funded or organized? There will always be people who will try to make a buck off the backs of the unfortunate, why would this be any different. Ship captains spread rumors of a haven for German people in the former German Southwest Africa, and charge outlandish prices in goods and such for passage to this paradise. Wizard's first rule: People are stupid, given proper motivation almost everyone will believe almost anything. With the revelation of a German haven, people will give up all their earthly belongings for passage to this utopia, only to be dropped off in Walvis Bay or Swakopmund. Over the years these places swell with german population but are generally homeless and penniless. With no coast guard or whatnot to stop them, this could lead to tens of thousands of unfortunate refugees. Eventualy the rich in Windhoek would take advantage of this influx of people from a highly industrialized and high tech nation and begin recruiting skilled workers for little pay or simply for room and board, leading to an industrial boom in the country, but with many jobs going to whites it could lead to racial tensions. The large homeless refugee population would be prime candidates for military recruitment in order to protect the white elite. Eventually fighting breaks out and the nation is split into Herero controlled north, Nama controlled south, and German Southwest Africa in the middle.

83DD-GSWA


I don't mean to make the herore or Namaqua seem little but they won't have the ability to establish a state in place of what is already in place. For example Afrikaans is the dominant first language in the 'Namaqualand', and economy wise Afrikaans speakers make up a massive proportion of the economy there. I can imagine a Ovambo state in the far north, where little infrastructure is. Especially with the influx of European immigrants adding to the already large white minority. I also doubt that Afrikaners just 'let' the Germans establish a state where Afrikaners make up 60% of the whites, and the Germans only 32% (Info from Wikipedia). Bezuidenhout 11:40, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any info for the 80s but in the 70s the whites were the majority population in Windhoek, a third of them being german. Windhoek is about 2/3rds the total population of the area designated as German SW Africa in the map I put up. So if say 100,000 germans come to the country over 10-15 years, that would slowly push Germans into either the 2nd largest ethnic group, or the largest in the area.Oerwinde 21:43, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

I love it.

Yankovic270 15:17, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the weirdness of responding to a comment that's 12 years old, but just to set the record straight for posterity: Windhoek had a nominal White majority under apartheid only because Blacks were forced to live outside the city in designated townships. So that statistic is misleading because it leaves out a large Black population that worked in the city and lived just outside it. False Dmitri (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Changes[]

If you haven't noticed, I've made some drastic changes in hopes that I can get the article graduated. While I am not the care-taker for the Union of South Africa, I do take care of 3 out of 4 of its articles at the moment and would like to bring these nations up to par with the other nations out there. If anyone has ideas, please, do not notify me, make the changes yourself, as I am fine with anything other than the original idea of "Entire German city evacuates to South African-controlled Namibia." Arstarpool 02:28, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

You might want to check out Walvis Bay. I intend to do more work on that article soon, so we could do some collaborating on the "Namibia" region of this timeline. - Mister Sheen 14:18, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
That article kind of screws me over, since Walvis Bay was the capital (albeit renamed and rebuilt) for my article. A solution, and the only solution I could make is that it would be a union between Langstand and Walvis Bay. This one did come first, as for the brief time that it was canon it did include Swakopmund and Walvis Bay, but I can't force you to do anything just because this one was canon first. Arstarpool 14:48, June 11, 2010 (UTC
To be honest, I read through all of the Namibia-related articles (including this one) before I even started Walvis Bay; and I asked one the main 1983: Doomsday talk page about making a Walvis Bay article. I was told that this article had been removed from canon, so I could disregard it when making Walvis Bay. So you can't really claim the rights to the Walvis Bay-area, just because it was a part of GSWA before you regenerated it. While GSWA was non-canon, I was perfectly within my rights to claim Walvis.
But given the history you have written for GSWA (starting off in Walvis Bay/Swakopmund/Langstrand, and expanding into the surrounding area), I think we could easily integrate this article and Walvis Bay. There are a few things we might need to work out, of course, but otherwise I think it could work well. For example, I think the early days of GSWA need a re-think, as Langstrand is only a minor holiday village, and the Langstrand area is much too close to Walvis Bay for them not to discover each other for 6 years. - Mister Sheen 15:26, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
Rather than delete the Langstrand part, I could write in that they came into contact earlier than 6 years, and Swakopmund would be discovered at the 6 year mark. Arstarpool 19:07, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
Given the distance and relationship between Langstrand, Walvis, and Swakopmund (and the fact that this area wasn't nuked); that would still be like Newark and New York not discovering eachother for 6 years.
Also, how do the Germans become such a dominant power? Namibia was in the middle of a War of Independence when Doomsday hit. Given the collapse of South Africa into a warlord-state, it's pretty clear that SWAPO would take full control of the area from the South African army. After that, SWAPO would decide on the name, flag, CoA, official languages, currency and capital city. A bunch of German immigrants aren't going to dominate over SWAPO and make the country into a second Germany.
Of course, we could set it up so that after South Africa retreats; SWAPO now have to fight against Germans to control this area. Or we could have it so that the Germans and SWAPO live together peacefully; but certainly not in a country with a German-esque flag, coat of arms, motto, capital city, language, and currency. There would be no way SWAPO would let that happen. - Mister Sheen 10:27, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
That has been the case in many Native American nations; Whites find themselves subjects of a Native nation, currency, flag, culture, and even language.The part I wrote in about the South African faction being absorbed could also lead to a war being fought for the area, though I doubt 90 soldiers could stand up against all of SWAPO. Nevertheless, a war of independence will problably be the solution.
South and Southwest Africa

One possibility for South and Southwest Africa.

I think that there would probably be more than one country-faction in this area. Also, I think more Germans, Afrikaaners and other Whites would band together (they might found a new settlement, rather than relocate to the mostly-Black area around Langstrand) - maybe as many as 30,000; if they came from across South Africa (which they probably would). That would create a decent-sized White state (which would basically be the beginnings of GSWA). Then, when the European Germans arrived, they would presumably settle in this White area.
Meanwhile, the South Africans would mostly relocate to these areas; leaving SWAPO to battle warlords and radical pro-Apartheid groups in the rest of Namibia. If GSWA begins in a new settlement (not Walvis or Langstrand), then we could leave the Walvis Bay article as it is.
To sum up:
  • German South West Africa: A White-majority country founded by German-Africans, Afrikaaners, other White Africans and German immigrants. Capital is either Langstrand, Walvis, or a new settlement, depending on what we do. Also controls large areas around its capital. Officially neutral in the War, though most people are anti-SWAPO.
  • Walvis Bay (only if GSWA doesn't control Walvis): A city state focussed on Walvis Bay and Swakopmund. Mostly Black, with a significant White minority. Neutral in the War, and has abolished Apartheid.
  • SWAPO: Controls much of Northern Namibia, almost 100% Black. The main power in the War, fighting against various Warlords and other minor factions in Namibia's interior.
Langstrand, or any coastal town for that matter, is a very unlikely place for anyone to survive at all under these circumstances. Given the fact that the Namibian coastline is among the driest places on the planet, attempting to found a state there pretty much equals suicide.
The GSWA would probably be centred on Windhoek, and the Germans would definitely need the help of the Afrikaners and presumably the Rehoboth Basters as well to remain in control so to use their initial position of power. If they lose power over the city in the early stages after DD, simple demography would make it very unlikely for them to ever gain enough power to found a state again. Using the Afrikaners as slave labour for three months is killing for their position as they blatantly need them to remain in charge (presumably even to such an extent that the Afrikaners may de facto become more important to the state than the actual Deutschnamibier), seconly it would make the GSWA a pariah state for the other current members of the NUSA, which means that they would never have been able to join that union in the first place.
Abolishing apartheid seems extremely unlikely under the given circumstances, with race relations more likely to have harshened than improved once survival become an object in itself.
In the timeline, there is no such thing as a South African National Defence Force, South Africa having become the Republic of the Cape.
Considering that most Deutschnambier are whole generations away from Germany, and pejoratively refer to "German Germans" as 'Deutschländer' or 'Jeriies', they are unlikely to devote their scarce resources to fancy expeditions to Europe.
Anyone, those were my two cents on this article. --Karsten vK (talk) 13:38, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
The area around Langstrand/Walvis Bay is actually kind of an anomaly, as it has one of the most pleasant climates in Namibia (though you're right about the rest of Namibia's coastline, for example the Skeleton Coat further North). Also, the incredibly rich Ocean around that area could more than support a little town like Langstrand. But I agree, Langstrand would be a very unlikely place for a new country.
I also agree that GSWA might be centred on Windhoek, or somewhere in that area. I still think the Deutschnamibier would found a new city, to avoid being 'marginalised' by Black Africans. You are definitely right about the Afrikaners; they would be absolutely necessary to a White State in this area.
As for Apartheid, it has not been fully abolished in Walvis Bay: Blacks and Whites are "separate but equal", as they have equal rights but are mostly still segregated. This was because the people of Walvis were desperate not to have Blacks and Whites degenerate into war, and this was the best way to keep the peace.
And as for the SANDF, when I said the "South African Army", I was talking about the final days of South Africa before it collapsed into various other states. - Mister Sheen 14:38, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
Sheen, if you had actually read through the article, you would see that Langstrand was or is not the capital. I simply chose to write that one in first. As for the aforementioned part on SWAPO, I wrote in most of the best of what I could come up with. Karsten, please do read through an article, and take the take to research what has been written. You are absolutely wrong about the coastline. As for the crap on exploring the rest of Germany, I tried to write it in at the latest date as possible, giving the country as much time to fully stabilize before it funds a (massive) operation into North Europe. The sites I chose were sites that would be as realistic as possible, as there would be little hope in surviving along in Windhoek, as the surrounding lands are relatively infertile. As far as I'm concerned, I am keeping Langstrand and Swakopmund in until the end, and with Sheens approval, Walvis Bay as well. Arstarpool 04:27, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
Sheen already commented on Langstrand apparently being an exception to the rule. Furthermore, I never stated anywhere that the timeframe of the expedition into Germany was impossible, I said that I can't see why they would devote their scarce resources to such an enterprise into so far away a land. Why would the Deutschnamibier be so keen on exploring a country they haven't been part of since WW I, and which they, considering the lack of communication in the post-Doomsday decades, will presumably have only further culturally alienated themselves from than they already were. Same thing applies to calling the capital Neu Berlin. I can imagine them caling in Neuwindhuk or something, but why call it after a presumably lost city in Europe where non of them will have probably set foot at all? As long as the community remains small, Windhoek's vicinity should be able to raise a sufficient amount of livestock, especially since Walvis Bay seems to be a canon nation already. --Karsten vK (talk) 15:54, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
I assumed that since Langstrand was the first city that GSWA decided to settle, it would HAVE to be the capital at some point, until they gained a larger city. I don't know why they choose to settle Langstrand before Swakopmund or Walvis Bay: that would be like choosing Seaside over Seattle. I do like the SWAPO stuff, but given the small proportion of Whites to Blacks, I think that GSWA would fight a Guerilla war, and would probably not take control of any major cities (given the size and experience of SWAPO). GSWA's main goal would be to establish themselves a sizeable White-majority area, and then defend it against SWAPO for as long as it took.
As for the Namibian coast, it is possibly the most arid, inhospitable area on Earth. See: this and this. I don't really care either way about the expeditions to Europe, I'm really not an expert (though I think the Deutschnamibier might feel some kind of comradeship with the Germans). But given that roughly 1/6 of Namibia's population live in Windhoek; and 1/2 of all the country's enterprises and facilities are in the city; it's clearly the easiest place to live in the whole country (though given the huge number of Blacks in the area, I doubt GSWA would want anything to do with Windhoek).
Once the whole situation is sorted: if GSWA still keeps the Swakopmund/Langstrand area, then Walvis will be a part of GSWA. But if things change around, and GSWA takes a different area (not near Walvis Bay), then Walvis will obviously not change. - Mister Sheen 16:15, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
Any other objections? Arstarpool 21:06, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

A further suggestion[]

SWA

Blue areas are controlled by SWAPO.
Red is GSWA.
Orange is Walvis Bay.

Here's another suggestion. If GSWA had a guerrilla war against SWAPO, then this might be the result. Walvis Bay is kind of like a Neutral, Demilitarised Zone between the two factions.

The green area contains Windhoek. I though Windhoek might become a city-state (or another neutral zone, like Walvis Bay), so I added that in as well. - Mister Sheen 16:07, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Name Dispute[]

Can Lordganon please stop changing the German name of the country to one that is obviously from google translate or some other internet translator. Any student of the German language could tell you that Republik Deutsch-Südwestafrika is the correct translation!

Emperorjames

EJ, it is a correct translation. And this is not Germany where this state is. Nor is it your article.

And, I am a student of said language. I know full well that both are correct.

Please refrain from doing such a thing again.

Lordganon 21:00, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain. In German, a country's name such as, for example, "Vereinigtes Königreich Großbritannien und Nordirland" would translate literally as "United Kingdom Great Britain and North Ireland" (notice, no "des"). While, in this case "Republik des Deutschen Südwesten Afrika" would translate literally as "Republic of German South-West Africa", you cannot go simply by the use of literal translations, as this would be an inaccurate translation. In fact according to de.wikipedia (German), the only state to use "des" in its official name was the short lived "Republik des Heiligen Markus" in the state of Veneto. Heiligen Markus, San Marco, is a person, not a nation state. So note that "Republik Deutsch-Südwestafrika" is the correct translation.

No, the article is not mine, but I have the right to improve it, do I not?

"Please refrain from doing such a thing again", I believe I should be asking the same of you.

Please try and understand, and I hope that you can improve your German still further, as it is a beautiful language I am proud to speak!

Es ist vorbei, also jetzt, Ich sage "aufwiedersehen" zu dir

Emperorjames

You missed the points, entirely.

Actually, no, you do not have the right to do that, whatsoever.

I fully understand your logic. But, you entirely failed to get what I said about it. This is not Germany. Nor are most of the inhabitants German. There are very good reasons for a different translation.

As before, please do not do this again. And "Goodbye" to you, too.

Lordganon 00:34, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

One last time: refrain from editing this article. I'm not warning you again. Lordganon 04:48, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

LG this is a comunal timeline. Which means that anyone can make adjustments as they see fit, within reason of course. This is just another example of your transformation from a fairly decent user to "His Imperial Majesty". You are once again blowing an extremely minor issue out of proportion to flaunt your power. While I apreciate your asistance in the past, I cannot appreciate your disgustingly snobbish and forbidding behavior. Since when is an issue about minor German grammar worth a major meltdown. But, then agian, you can't back down without losing face and that seems to be intolerable to you. "Don't edit here again". Once again: Doomsday is a community, which means that pretty much anyone can post an edit if it's not either disruptive, vandalism, or both. Editing the German name of a nation is neither.

Yank 05:02, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Yank, you need to calm down. Not a word of that is true.

The rules clearly state that he needs permission from the author/creator to edit it, barring some sort of spelling, etc. error, or adoption of it. This isn't that.

The name is proper as it stands at this time. There's no reason to be changing it. Hence, the warning.

Lordganon 05:36, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Lordganon,

Might I just ask that if I "do not have the right to (edit), whatsoever", then can you please explain to me the point of the big "EDIT" box at the top of every page; if certain users who displease you are not allowed to edit? Besides, I agree with Yank in that it is not the first time you have sought to silence your opponents over very minor issues (take for example, my nomination of Atlantic Iron Curtain as featured althist several months ago). I tried to be civil with you, pointing out a very slight tanslation mistake and asking you to correct it. You have reacted by effectively banning me from exercising the right of every wiki user to edit pages as they wish. I did not wish you to take this personally, although it is clear that you cannot take it any other way. I was very sure that you had reasons for reacting the way you did over several previous issues, although now I believe that I have seen your true colours. You have a serious superiority complex! I understand now why so many of the other users of this wiki (including those high up in its heirarchy) have been privately complaining about you, and I will now be joining in their chorus of dislike. Please understand that the problem here is evidently not with me or with other wiki users, but with you and you alone!

Sie brauchen viele Hilfe, weil Sie einen sehr großen und klar Problem haben! Ich anflehe Sie zu Halt mit Ihr Überreaktionen und zu verbessern Ihr Deutsch, vor Sie streiten über ein sehr schlicht und belanglos Fehler!

From someone who is not afraid to speak German or his mind,

Emperorjames

Okay, both of you need to calm down.

Emperorjames, this wiki differs from the others in the fact it isn't as free to edit as other wikias, as you should already know. Henceforth, LG is right; you can't edit other people's articles without their permision. Also, please do calm down. This issue is too minor for something such as that. And just writing in German doesn't mean you can write whatever you want; this wiki has some civility matters. Cut it out.

LG, please do calm down as well. You're right with the editing part and I don't know about German grammar. But a warning is just too far for something as banal as this.

Fed (talk) 17:39, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Can Fed please point me in the direction of the creator/owner of this article. Also, I have had several of my articles edited without my permission, and I've been mostly fine with it, as is the case with the vast majority of articles on this wiki. Could you please point me to the area in the guidelines where the editing rules are stated?

I have been calm and civil up until this point, and yet have gotten nowhere. Who should I appeal to if I wish to complain against one of the "highest up" members of this wiki?

Please answer these questions, as I would like to be made furhter aware of how I should be handling this situation.

Emperorjames

I can only ask him nicely to stop so many times before I have to warn him, Fed.

EJ, your nomination was voted down by the community. Get over it, please. You're not being calm. Please calm down.

Looking at your articles quickly, none have been edited by anyone else past the proper addition of categories.

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Alternative_History:Conventions_in_use_in_this_wiki

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/QSS_and_QAA

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Editorial_Guidelines_(1983:_Doomsday)

...And looking at things, the article is Arstar's, which given his instructions to me, pretty much means that I'm the caretaker right now. Forgotten about this one, lol.

Lordganon 08:25, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Expansion[]

I was wondering if this article could be made up to date. As well as this, I think the country would have expanded more by now towards the South and other NUSA countries. On top of that, I think more German immigrants must have also arrived. Thoughts? :/ 1 Imp (Say Hi?!) 16:15, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and write it in. Arstar talk 00:26, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Map(s)[]

Wrong page at the start, whoops!

DD83-Map of Namibia (Geo)

So, this nation really needs a basemap which isn't small. And I have taken up the challenge to make such a map. Now this is a faded version of a wiki map highlighting cities/towns and the main river within the nation. I hope to use this as a comparison and this is to show anyone interested why I will be added what I add.

So, the first point I raise here is - why should the nation expand on the coast? Especially with the fact that it is mostly the Namib Desert? I think this folly should be erased and a more logical route (which i will try to show on my new map - which I will not be adding to the main page) for the expansion of the nation be made.

Please do tell me your thoughts, even if you aren't LG XD 1 Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:15, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

DD83-Map of Namibia

Ok, here is the base for the final version I will be making. The rivers can still be seen on the map. :) 1 Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:45, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Why? For the same reasons that Namibia controls it otl. Land, security, and resources. There is nothing "folly" about it.

That being said, some expansion inland along the river is a good idea too.

Lordganon (talk) 09:33, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I thought it might have been a more logical course of action, but you seem to make sense. I think the newest phase of expansion I have written about on the new page would be directed towards the river, rather than keep going south. I'm guessing Windhoek is in their control too? I would think that instead of expanding all their frontiers, they would save resources and just journey to the river banks and encourage people to farm the land there.

And a crucial advantage the nation now has is extra rainfall - I would think if those rivers were semi-permanenet, they would become into permanent lakes. Its kind of like what happened with Chad, but with less effect due to the fact they have worse geographical conditions in comparison.

So what do you think about using my larger base as a basemap - do you think it would be better to make the map for the nation using it? :) 1 Imp (Say Hi?!) 13:10, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Windhoek is already under their control.

Thing with expansion there, is the content of the article. Have a look.

Really, the content of it doesn't match the case on the ground, anyway, so it needs to be rewritten. Takes care of the problem when done.

Not lakes, just rivers that are there more often. Chad has dry lakebeds, this area dry riverbeds.

For the map, power to you.

Lordganon (talk) 11:44, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Whoops! Meant rivers lol.

Wait, so you are telling me they already expand towards the river? I'm sorry but I don't clearly understand you, lol.

Thank you for the map. I was really hoping to make one using this base map! :) 1 Imp (Say Hi?!) 13:01, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I have made the possible basemap. Green is areas under the control of GSWA. Light green is areas slated for expansion (as of 2011). In this map I have included the towns/cities of Okahandja and Rehoboth becuase they are too close to Windhoek to miss, tbh. I have also included the strip of land on the west coast as you said they would have becuase of the resources. I am hoping this map gets your approval lol. The map has just been uploaded onto the map above.

Although there is light green upto the border of Botswana, I am aware of the fact some land may actually be under the control of Botswana. However, I wonder whether this would include the town of Gobabis - as I know that half of Kavango upto and including Rundu would be under the control of Botswana as well as the whole of the Caprivi province?

And coming back to the dry riverbeds, I think the only seasonal river in the nation is actually in the Oshikoto, which would become permanent and benefit SWAPO. I think the river starting in Khomas is actually a permanent river and would actually become a bit larger - thus making it an attractive option to expand too - both from the coast as well as from Windhoek/Rehoboth.

DD83-Langstrand GSWA

And to finish it off, I have a picture we could use for Langstrand. I have a feeling that the money for this would come from all over South Africa, with the town becoming a "rich-man's haven". Thoughts, le LG? :) 1 Imp (Say Hi?!) 15:08, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Imp: Read the article. You're missing a big detail. One that makes no sense in several ways, but still a big detail. Let's just say that anything east of Windhoek is touchy.

Yes, Gobabis would be included. Eastern Kavango, Otjozondjupa, and Omaheke. Along with all of the Zambezi region. At a guess, anything east of the desert.

A "dry riverbed" need not even be seasonal. Many, especially in dry parts of the world like this, don't work for years, if not decades or centuries.

No, the river starting in Khomas is actually seasonal. If you look at it on Google Maps, you'll see than it's composed of small lakes and chunks of river, with dammed areas on it. In the rainy season, it would turn into a full river.

Good picture for Langstrand, but your description is a big exaggeration, imo.

Lordganon (talk) 13:42, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Lol, screw the description then XD

Ok. I agree, it doesn't make sense. So good region for expansion then?

What would the effect of no dams have on the river? And by the rainy season you are referring to DD I'm guessing. :) 1 Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:27, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Expansion for whom?

No dams would mean less dry spots in it, but still not functional outside of the rainy season.

No - "rainy season" is the time of year when there is actually rain. Think of it as something skin to Monsoon season in India, just with regular rain.

This is an area where DD really isn't going to change the rainfall much, if at all. Really, doubling a rainfall of a quarter inch per year really doesn't do much of anything, you know?

Lordganon (talk) 13:52, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

83DD-CoAGSWA

I have a possible CoA. What do you think? I need to fix the size and stuff though... 1 Imp (Say Hi?!) 18:34, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Current Control[]

I have become a bit confused after reading the above. Are we implying no expansion toward Gobabis as the region is touchy? And are the current dark green regions of the map acceptable (the light green portions of the map to not account to anything - those were just for reference). I also believe that perhaps by now GSWA have reached the Orange river?

I would appreciate this being cleared up. 1 Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:46, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing Gobabis is under Botswanan control? 1 Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:25, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Orange River? No. They don't go down the coast even as far as this map shows.

Inland from current GSWA is not so worth expansion as the coast. Gobabis... may fall under Namibia, realistically.

The map on the page right now is not good. Windhoek, for example, is part of this state yet not in its borders on that map.

Lordganon (talk) 20:10, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

Review[]

Hey all. On the main discussion page I listed the reasons that I continue to find this to be an impossible part of the timeline. I won't repeat everything here. I'll just reiterate that GSWA was always controversial, having had to go through no less than four rounds as a Proposal (1, 2, 3, 4). It's built on some genuinely racist and neocolonialist stereotypes. And there's little to explain or justify any mass migration from Germany to Africa... other than a desire by writers to see a lot of successful White Germans in Namibia.

On the other hand, I think it's 100% plausible for White rule to persist in Walvis Bay. Now South Africa was collapsing, and defending the remaining pockets of government control around the key cities was a higher priority than continuing to occupy SWA, so many of the forces were certainly called back there. And I don't think that those who are remaining could hold out indefinitely against SWAPO, which is surely going to fight relentlessly, with the backing of the countryside and most of the population, until Windhoek falls. However, Walvis Bay is set apart from the populated parts of the country, and it's got natural defenses in the highlands and desert. South African forces can plausibly make their stand there, and they will attract Whites fleeing the capital. Once South Africa itself disappears, the natural next step for Walvis Bay (and the land around it) would be to call itself an independent republic called South West Africa.

Eventually SWA and Namibia would need to come to some kind of peaceful settlement, since economically the two cities would still need one another. And a peaceful settlement might require SWA to mellow somewhat its racial policies, as implied by the article. The country's participation in the NUSA and other international affairs would not need to change. False Dmitri (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Germany is not capable of sending any one anywere in the wake of Doomsday. Namibian Afrikaners are kicked ut of thire homes and flee to the White held Walvis Bay. The blacks are kicked out of Walvis Bay and flee to safty in Namibia.

Walvis Bay is racist against blacks and Namibia is multiculturalist. Thameside (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The main talk page post is here. This was discussed on Discord way more than here, so there isn't a lot of discussion. False Dmitri (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Advertisement