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.
GreaterMacedonia2 2

Kingdom of Macedonia

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Any more expansion in Serbia should be to the north only - the map this is based on is a bit out of date, and the area nw of Macedonia on the map is Montenegro, which would likely be independent - and a much tougher nut to crack than Serbia, given the terrain.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)


Kingdom of Macedonia

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) 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


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 Editorial Guidelines 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 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.
GreaterMacedonia2 1

Kingdom of Macedonia

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)

Map of Macedonia

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.

And this is still just that original map of "Greater Macedonia", only with an expansion northwards - I can still see the exact boundaries to the south even!

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

Well your argument makes no sense, no Bulgarian article has claimed the territory that is being discussed, and there is no "one man, one veto" rule either.
Yes. It has the same southern boundaries. The eastern boundaries are slightly reduced and the northern boundaries are slightly expanded.Caeruleus 05:36, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

The maps on both Rhodope and Vidin - as well as the established canon of the history of both articles - clearly states that the area is A: a warzone, to some extent, and B: not under Macedonian control.

This has already been discussed in the past.

This is how it is, and this is how it shall stay. Canon does not' have to be adjusted for proposals, and I will not do it in this case. Verbatim.

To have the same southern boundaries as Greater Macedonia makes no sense - there is no way that the borders would be exactly that.

Lordganon 09:00, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

And, like I said before, your argument makes no sense. Just because it's a warzone, doesn't mean Macedonia couldn't have marched in and conquered it. It is not claimed by any nation on any of your maps and those maps were made before Macedonia was proposed so it couldn't possibly include them. Also, you edited your article after Macedonia was proposed, and after Rhodope was graduated, to purposely exclude them from obtaining that territory, which is not allowed. Finally, your article is suppose to be complete up to modern day to be considered part of canon. If you edited an event in the 1990s after it was already graduated, it never deserved to be graduated in the first place because it was incomplete.
The southern borders just match pre-Doomsday Greece provincial borders. It is assumed that Greece controls all territory south of there

Caeruleus 21:05, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

What map do you guys think is best, if you don't like any of the ones above, don't hesitate to make your own. Ownerzmcown 11:46, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think that the current map I have put up makes enough sense, not too much of Albania, not too muchof Greece, and not too much of Serbia, just right, besides, they beat Albania badly and would likely annex plenty of land if they could occupy it. Ownerzmcown 23:20, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

There's still too much of Albania. Macedonia wouldn't be able to beat Albania that badly, if they went to war at all. In all likelihood, this war would never happen because a large percentage of the Macedonian population is Albanian and a war would tear Macedonia apart from the inside. Also, southern Serbia is where Kosovo is, which would also become independent, has a large Albanian population, and is traditionally allied to Albania. So Macedonia couldn't control that area either. You also need to keep in mind Macedonia's population. It's not that large and has ethnic divisions, which makes actions, such as the Albanian War, implausible. Caeruleus 00:29, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
What about this one, less of north Albania and no Kosovo. Ownerzmcown 00:51, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Greater Macedonia 7

It does not matter in the least the order or anything of the sort - it is canon and thus has priority over this in all shapes and forms.

While you are correct in that the majority of the Macedonia encounter was added after canonization, the section itself was there beforehand.

And irregardless, the map of Rhodope and Vidin has been there since June 26th. The first "attempt" at adding a map of any kind to this article was on the 24th, but was not actually put in the article in full until the 26th as well - and it was the "Greater Macedonia" map that was copied directly from wikipedia and has now been acknowledged by all as being trash. The first "map" itself was put in on July 12th.

What you are missing here is that the Rhodope/Vidin Map is canon - and as a result, it automatically has precedence over this. No ifs, ands, or buts - this is the way of the time line.

This has already been dealt with on this page in the past, and this fact was recognized. Now, you want to argue and pick a fight again? I can prattle on about my issues besides this with this article for a very long time, but I largely chose to shut up for the concession that was made.

Car, I know you're doing this because I continue to point out the flaws with your Turkey article, and you refuse to listen - that is petty.

Owner, the map on the page right now looks fine - its just that the southern and southeastern boundaries are too straight or extended to be realistic and are fairly illogical militarily, respectively.

This should be better.


Lordganon 06:51, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the map argument makes no sense. Based on what you just said, if a canonized article had a world map that included only 3 countries on it, no more than those three countries would be allowed to become part of the canon because the already canonized map said they don't exist.
I could honestly care less about what you said about my Turkey article. If anything, I'm glad you're commenting because you're the only one who is. Btw, hurry up and write your addition to the Eastern Turkish Wasteland article.
GreaterMacedonia2 3
Also, I tried to illustrate what I think are proper borders in the map at the bottom right. Caeruleus 15:48, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

I think the one I just put up makes sense because now Macedonia can trade with Rhodope. Ownerzmcown 16:48, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

That'll do nicely, Owner. Now, to deal with the.... walls of text written below this :P

Well Caer, I owe you an apology then. It's just seemed that way to me since I posted the objection, I guess. I can't even remember what we had discussed me doing to that article, lol.

Lordganon 11:09, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Owner, you're still going to have to explain how Macedonia managed to conquer both Kosovo and Albania, which are two fiercely indepedent countreis and Albania would be one of the strongest countries in the region post-Doomsday. Also, I think Macedonia should control a bit more of central Greece because that would be much easier to take as CoG largely abandoned it.
LG, the reason I object is just that I think you're wrong.Caeruleus 14:48, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Car, they shouldn't. The entire Greek Army was stationed in Macedonia at the time, I highly doubt they are going to be going anywhere (with the irradiated bottleneck of Attica preventing them from moving south, and the limited carrying capacity of the Greek Navy would make it impossible for all but the 2nd Army to be going anywhere). I highly doubt that Macedonia is going to be able to take any part of Greece, whatsoever (especially considering that the inhabitants of Northern Greece are actually Greeks, ethnically, linguistically, and culturally). BoredMatt 15:04, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

I will soon give an explanation for Kosovo, but I already wrote how they defeated Albania. Second, the army was only a few miles from Thessaloniki, which was hit by multiple nukes, the radiation would likely have spread over to their base and killed plenty of them, also they probably would have moved south to secure the area around Athens, the only other area which was nuked in Greece. Ownerzmcown 17:34, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

*bangs head on wall* Owner, only the armor was anywere near Thessaloniki (the others were at Verioa, Epirus, and somewere in West Macedonia. If Athens was hit, then the first thing I would do as brigade commander would be to seal off the area!!! I wouldn't go near the place for a decade!!! It's been freaking nuked!!! You don't "secure" a nuclear wasteland, you get killed by it!!! I would cordon off the area, secure an ops base in the locality, and coordinate with the local peripheries' civil authorities to secure the area. BoredMatt 18:22, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
Calm down BoredMatt lol. But he is somewhat right. You'll have to account for that Owner. I would say that the Greek 2nd Army's lack of supplies, nuclear fallout, and relative isolation would leave them desperate by the mid to late 90s. Also, they seem to have been abandoned by the CoG. So, out of desperation, it is possible that by sometime around the late 90s/early 2000s, northern Greece could be absorbed/conquered by Macedonia.
Owner, you're not listening to what I'm saying. If Kosovo survies as an indepedent nation, which they probably would, they would be a strong ally of Albania and join their side in any war they're in. Also, Albania would be stronger than Macedonia for the first 10-20 years after Doomsday. Macedonia wouldn't be able to win a war against Albania and Kosovo. And, if you have problems with Greeks to the south, the whole situation becomes very difficult for Macedonia. It's still possible, but not in the timeline you've currently written. Caeruleus 18:35, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
Now granted, I haven't been in this discussion at all, but I really object to the whole business of Kosovo existing as an independent nation. That would not happen in this TL, as Mitro had already stated before that the different nationalities in the region would try to help their own people, and would most likely attack others in the region. As such, the region of Kosovo would most likely be carved into pieces by the Serbs, Albanians and the Macedonians and not try and fend for itself.--Vladivostok 12:59, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Any other problems I still haven't solved? Ownerzmcown 02:08, August 19, 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...

  • 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.

Mr.Xeight 23:58, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

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:

  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.

Caeruleus 02:39, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

While I agree about the LoN not sending aid, the ADC is a defensive military alliance, if a high standing member is attacked, they will respond. And I think his problem is the indigenous greeks living in macedonian claimed greece are described as invaders, which is in fact the exact opposite.Oerwinde 09:22, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

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)

Well...that's cool. Northern Greece is Macedonina then. The world is making more sense now. Caeruleus 05:13, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Well I am pleased to say that Greece will be under new management, actually mine. However there is somethings that I want to point out to you guys.

Your treatment of Xeight was horrible. I know he was mean a few times but you guys were pretty mean to.

I'm not going to let you get away with all the stuff you did with Xeight. You will have to respect that Greece is canon, and that the mainland is slowly being repopulated and eventually will be reclaimed from any other country that has taken land. Whether you like it or not Greece is canon and has passed the consensus test. However I am not going to scream and shout at you because Caeruleus and Ownermz are my buddies, but do understand I will separate our personal and work relationships for the better interest of both articles. I will also help get Turkey and Macedonia become canon when I come back from Tampa. Arstarpool 15:21, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Please just write a complete article for Greece so there isn't so much guesswork about Greece. Caeruleus 15:56, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm not really a major contributor to DD, but here's my two cents:

Ok, Athens was hit by a nuke. I'm pretty sure that the extreme north and south (not to mention the islands) are gonna hold together fairly well, with only Attica, Peloponese, and Central Greece irradiated to any damaging extent. This is useful, in a obscene way, as it creates choke points for the refugees out of Athens and the surrounding area to be killed off by radiation, disease, and starvation (solving much of Greece's refugee problems). I think the peripheries are going to hold together well enough, considering that (most) are going to be able to sustain their current populations. The First Army Corps, stationed in Central Macedonia (with the armor and 4 infantry battalions in Epirus), should be able to hold together the north fairly well. The Second Army Corps (which is a collection of Greece's spec. ops units) is stationed at Veroia (also in Greek Macedonia), so together that should be able to hold off all but a full-scale invasion. The majority of the armor, artillery, and command elements are with the Fourth at Xanthe, Thrace, and should be able to stabilize the immediate region (and, within a month or two, send reinforcements to hold off any invasion of Greater Macedonia). The navy had only a frigate and their subs stationed near Athens, so they should be able to stabilize the islands (if they aren't stabilized already) with little effort.

Then there's this whole thing about Alexander coming in from Spain. It says he had his followers build him a bunker to shelter himself from the radiation when the radiation started to move towards his estate. Radiation is going to move with the wind. Let's say the wind is moving a 10 mph. that would take app. 3 days to make it to Alexander's estate. There is no way that people can build a rad-shielded bunker that fast!!

Also, supposing that they could, Alexander and his loyal followers (how many of them are there?) move across irradiated, bandit-infested, disease-ridden land to miraculously find a boat (several boats, actually) to carry His Majesty across the Med to Yugoslavia. It may just be me, but I would think that most people who own a boat are gonna bug out ASAP when they see a mushroom cloud on the horizon. And most areas with boats are gonna be cities, and most of said cities are either going to be nuked or evacuated by boat.

Then, supposing Alexander and his loyal band of intrepid followers get to Yugoslavia, he is defeated by local warlords on numorous occasions. He then manages to push on into Macedonia (which, may I remind you, is untouched), and suddenly, after suffering defeat at the hands of petty warlords, he is able to conquer Macedonia? Seems a tad odd to me.

Just some food for thought.

BoredMatt 16:48, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Arstarpool, I never said you could take over Greece, and no one here ever did anything wrong except defend their work, which all we've been doing here; this might sound rude, but this is why I had to read letters from the TSPTF calling for your removal from the organization. I can handle myself as well, thank you very much.

And as for anyone that cares, I'll be open for suggestions to Greece (as I've decided to stay as the caretaker until I find a person who I truly think will be good as the caretaker). BoredMatt, your musing of Greece are wonderful; in fact awhile back Ben, Mr. Hicken, and I painted the mountaisn of Central and Northern Greece as a radiated-death zone. The rule of thumb is that Greece will expand south; even the claims of Constantinople are merely nothing more than a few soldiers stationed there and a chapel for the victims of the Nuclear-Holocaust and the Old City and the chapel is under the Patriarc's jurisdiction an emergency synod was called after Constantinople was bombed and a Patriarch was chosen from among the attendees; currently the Patriarch resides in the Republic of the Holy Mountain). If anyone would like to lend their hand on designing flags for the various entities that make up the Federation that don't already have flags, that would be spectacular. If you would like to design one and hear any ideas from me or contribute yourself, don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page.

Mr.Xeight 05:32, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

ADC and the LoN

Does anybody have a problem with my page saying that Macedonia is an applicant nation for the League of Nations and Atlantic Defense Community, I'm sure while Greece would object, their conflict hasn't yet produced a war per say and the conflict is a lot like Kashmir, multiple countries can dispute a territory but all be members of the same organization. The ADC and LoN would simply see it as claimed by Greece but occupied by Macedonia, supporters would gather up on both sides, but both countries would still keep the benefits of being member nations of the ADC and the LoN. Ownerzmcown 20:20, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think the hatred between Macedonia and Greece would be too great for Macedonia to even consider joining the ADC. Not to mention how both nations probably want to go to war with each other go gain territory (Greece to regain control of northern Greece and Macedonia to fully unite Greater Macedonia). Also, Turkey would greatly oppose Macedonia joining the ADC. Caeruleus 23:08, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia would want to join the ADC because it would offer them defense from northern invaders and warlords, and would give them allies in a great range. Also, why would Turkey oppose Macedonia joining the ADC? Ownerzmcown 23:21, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

No...the ADC would be powerless to stop northern invaders and warlords. The only purpose of the ADC, really, is to defend against Sicily, not defend member states against the post-Doomsday wasteland.
Turkey would oppose it primarily because the ADC supports Greece. Turkey's main foreign policy goal is to isolate, surround, and defeat Greece. Joining the ADC would basically mean Macedonia is turning its back on Turkey and its alliance with it, which would destroy their relations. Turkey sees Macedonia as its main partner in the Balkans and, ultimately, another ally against Greece. Caeruleus 00:20, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then if Macedonia and Turkey are allied against Greece,wnhy don't we create our own military alliance? Ownerzmcown 01:10, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Because Macedonia and Turkey are allied and you need more than two countries to form a formal military alliance organization. Plus, both of our articles haven't been graduated yet. One step at a time ;)
Also, so you know, I've planning a military organization for the eastern Meditteranean/Middle East, but that won't come until after my articles are graduated. Caeruleus 03:06, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll take the ADC part off. Ownerzmcown 03:23, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering guys, if Greece and Macedonia, the two major Balkans powers in the likely case of this happening, went to war, what do you guys think the sides would be and who do you think would win in the end? Ownerzmcown 09:48, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

No one would win. It would pull the ADC in on Greece's side, and Turkey in on Macedonia's side, and you'd end up with both Greece and Macedonia razed to the ground, and the ADC and Turkey with heavy losses. It would destabilize the region for a long time.Oerwinde 10:33, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, never mind that obviously horrific idea. Ownerzmcown 17:47, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it could be slightly less horrific than that. The ADC was formed to oppose Sicily, not Macedonia. They would only involve themselves if absolutely necessary. But, Greece alone could crush Macedonia. Macedonia and Turkey together could defeat Greece though. There's always the possibility of joining the Second Sicilian War on Sicily's side though, but that has to wait until after the article is graduated. Caeruleus 19:29, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that, the king of Macedonia, Alexander, was a strong believer in democracy and constitutional monarchy, I have stated in this article that Macedonia condemns Sicily's actions and its type of government so there is actually more likelyhood of them joining the side of Greece and the ADC rather than Sicily, against some likelyhood. Ownerzmcown 20:58, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well, then what is a stronger force in Macedonian politics? The animosity towards Greece or the disdain towards Sicily? Caeruleus 21:08, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Greece. Greece and the Slavic states have hated each other profoundly since a long time ago, and, IMO, Sicily wouldn't be such a problem to Macedonia. Fedelede 21:14, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure which side they would choose, Sicily is a much more immeadiate threat while Greece is a long time enemy, and if they assisted Greece, the two would cool off tensions, even just a little bit. Also, Caeruleus, what is Turkey's position on the Sicilian expansion. Ownerzmcown 21:18, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

P.S. What do you guys think about Macedonia having its own overseas mandates or colonies, after all Greece has its own mandates and it was created after Macedonia? Ownerzmcown 21:29, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Turkey wouldn't really care about Sicilian expansion, as long as they don't expand into the Balkans and treat their North African territories with some decency. However, their hatred of Greece, stemming from their occuapation of pre-Doomsday Turkish territory, trumps that.
Owner, Greece has overseas mandates because it has a strong navy, several North African states collapsed, Greece has the support ANZC and the ADC, and Greece is much stronger than Macedonia. Macedonia would be unable to have overseas mandates and they would have no interest in acquiring them. The Macedonian goal would be the reunification of Yugoslavia. Caeruleus 21:35, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Good point i guess, so maybe they would actually help the Sicilians. Ownerzmcown 21:36, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

It's a distinct possibility, especially if the Turks decide to use the opppurtunity to go to war with Greece. Macedonia probably wouldn't enter the war alone though because they would have to face most of the Greek Army alone, since Sicilian land forces would be busy in Corsica, Libya, and possibly central Italy. Caeruleus 21:39, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Does Turkey have a bunch of allied countries or some other way that if Macedonia and Turkey/ and it allies intervened on Sicily's side that they would pose a threat to Greece or the other ADC members in the Second Sicily War? Ownerzmcown 21:46, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Turkey is also allied with Lebanon and Israel (though I'm still working on how that will work). However, Turkey's allies probably wouldn't intervene because they have no interest in the conflict, except possibly Israel who might consider an invasion of the Greek Suez Mandate (which is doubtful). Honestly though, Turkey alone is enough to majorly change the tide of the war for Sicily because Greece is the only nation that's a true threat to Sicily in the Mediterranean. If Turkey, with or without Macedonian assistance, attacked Greece, that would divert most of their attention away from Sicily, which would leave Sicily free to conquer Libya, Corsica, Northern Italy, and possibly even the Balearic Islands. Caeruleus 22:09, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Honestly isn't it more likely that Macedonia, Turkey, and their allies would pretty much just stay neutral, after all Macedonia is still recovering from the Albanian War and Turkey is likely still going to have to consolidate it holdings in the east, so neither of them are entirely ready for another war yet, especially one as big as the Second Sicily War. Ownerzmcown 00:49, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. Though, despite Turkey's recover, the current party in power has grown quite radical. They may jump into the war anyway. I haven't decided how I'm going to gauge Turkey's reaction to the war yet. Caeruleus 00:52, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

In Conclusion...

Are there anymore remaining problems I need to fix before this article is made canon, I am very sure I have addressed most if not all issues. Ownerzmcown 22:33, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

P.S. What do you guys think the tank production per year would be for my country and should I have artillery? Ownerzmcown 04:52, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you should have artillery. Tank production per year at this point would be like 5 per year, maybe 10? Most of your heavy machinery and large military equipment would probably need to be imported until 2015 or so. Caeruleus 04:55, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I like the new Rhodope section, for the most part.

I did write in the Rhodope article that they believed Macedonia was selling Vidin weapons, but in the Vidin article I states that was not true - they had merely attempted to do so, and pissed off the Macedonians so much that they refused to sell. Insulting the king, and what-not.

Vidin's been buying them from Serbian arms dealers, who have many less scruples. Some of these weapons could be Macedonian, mind.

Just remember that the Greek Party in the Rhodope Parliament is part of the Rhodope government in all of this.

Lordganon 01:20, August 22, 2010 (UTC)


Now I half expect you to not want to perhaps talk things out with me for my extremely defensive behaviour (for which I apologize), but would you perhaps care to talk things out between Skopia and Greece? I mean we both need stability in our region [the Balkans], and all you want is to expand your land. I'd like to make a proposal, but don't be alarmed, everything's negotiable.

  • How about you give all of OTL Greece's land back to the Federation; nothing more.
  • You (and by that I mean Macedonia) can have free-access through Greek ports of the north, as well as keep your navy in Alexandroupoli.
  • Both of us sign an alliance, and perhaps we can create a Balkan-and-Black Sea Pact, with you, me, Rhodope, Transylvania, Georgia, and some other Black Sea Russian states?
  • I can help you expand north; if you'd like a seashore, Greek soldiers can just happen to end up helping Macedonia conquer up to Montenegro or the Albanian Coast, and Greek arms can just happen to get into the hands of Macedonian soldiers...

So, care to open up negotiations? This is something I've been meaning to ask you for awhile now, it's only now that I've escaped homework's talons. Mr.Xeight 02:32, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I know I have nothing to do with Greece or Macedonia, but I'm secondary caretaker (and creator) of the Federation of Georgia, and I would agree with that. I can't agree it by myself, but I like the idea. Fedelede 02:37, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

What about this map? Fedelede 02:52, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Screen shot 2010-08-24 at 21.50.31

Yellow: Greece, Blue: Macedonia, Light Blue: Turk Sultanate, Reds: Albanian survivor states, Green: Rhodope

Now the Anatolian Possessions are a bit off (Oerwinde captures the Greek possessions of Anatolia perfectly), but it works for me-your map shows all of OTL Greece in Federation hands, and as I said, Macedonia will has free passage from Alexandroupoli down to the Med. or northeast to the Black. Perhaps a Balkan League and Black Sea League can be formed, two seperate leagues that fit the needs of each of the nations of the respective geographic areas, but work together to bring stability and cooperation between the two regions. Mr.Xeight 02:58, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I like these negotiation very much, but what if they both also began an effort to rebuild Thessaloniki, just like in my article? Ownerzmcown 03:07, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Also, make the map so Macedonia control southern Serbia to match the map shown. Ownerzmcown 03:09, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great. My second negotiation was that part of OTL-Greek lands become a Greco-Macedonian condominium. Also, if it makes you feel better, Thessaloniki will be majority Slavic, possibly permanently-maj. Slavic; most Greeks are high-tailing it to Egypt and Libya for obvious reasons. I've been toying with the irony that more Greek-speakers will be found outside of OTL Greece (Italy, North Africa) than in OTL Greece itself. Now as a second-language in Italy and second language for the Copts and Masree, but nonetheless, more speakers outside Greece. Mr.Xeight 03:15, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

But also what I like about you idea of a Balkan or Black Sea League is the possibilities, why just stop at the Balkans or the Black Sea when he can create a union for the entire Mediterranean?!

(P.S. Sorry to sound like a supervillian in that last part, but it may also take some negotiating with Caeruleus) Ownerzmcown 03:20, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Um...Owner, not to burst your supervillain bubble, but why in the world would Macedonia voluntarily give up their land to Greece and essentially submit themselves to Greece as a client state? Macedonia would want to regain control of all of Greater Macedonia (which you would essentially be giving up) and Greece doesn't control most of central and northern Greece anyway. Additionally, Macedonia currently faces no threat from Greece due to their current involvement in the Second Sicilian War and Macedonia's alliance with Turkey. Plus, Macedonia hates Greece, and vice versa. In my opinion, Macedonia would never accept this, not to mention you'd essentially be sending a declaration declaration of war with Turkey. Caeruleus 03:27, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest Xeight. We all know your negotiations are really thinly-veiled demands. I think Macedonia makes Greece more realistic. We all know that every nation impacted (and some that weren't) fragmented on Doomsday. So why should Greece not only have all of Greece, but also a significant neo-empire? It does not add up. And since the Macedonians, not the Greeks were the ones to restore Thessaloniki while the Greeks were busy with their implausible neo-imperialist ventures. So why should Macedonia surrender the city they spent time and money restoring?

Yankovic270 03:30, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you some reason! Reject this out of hand, Owner. The fact that this was even offered is utterly ridiculous and unrealistic. Greece wouldn't realistically offer this and most importantly, Macedonia would never accept this. Caeruleus 03:35, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Xeight, Yank and Caeruleus have a good point, Greece and Macedonia are enemies, Turkey is Macedonia's main ally and they both hate Greece because of Greece and Turkey's general animosity towards each other and Macedonia hates Greece because of Greece's claim to Macedonian land. Plenty of the parts of these "negotiations" wouldn't seem to favor Macedonia at all, and frankly seem to me to be like they are really more like demands after Macedonia lost a war to Greece, the way I see it. Ownerzmcown 03:37, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

That was one of the most amusing position flips I've seen. Just thought you all would like to know that... But thank you for seeing the logic of my position. Btw, this is a great excuse to move closer to war. They've insulted the very essence of the Macedonian nation. Caeruleus 03:44, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

These are my final words on the subject: To Xeight


In Plain English, It Means Go To Hell!

Omar N. Bradley's response to a German request to surrender during the Battle of the Bulge 1944.

Ownerzmcown 03:52, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Classic. Caeruleus 04:00, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

You know what, screw you Yankovic and Caeruleus; Owner, I'm just trying to make an ally and make peace; if you want all of that land then by all means take it; it's yours with no Greek claim-I'll go with the more ironic idea of more Greeks fleeing to North Africa than Northern Greece. And Greece never said it hates Macedonia because I never gave it thought-my quarrel was only because I took it as an insult that I wasn't consulted in the matter and that's why I was obstreperous and there came a void between you and I; if anything Greece would be more willing to work out its problems with Macedonia because the Balkans became a hellhole.

So here's my new negotiation, Owner, take the land, afterall the south (of you that is) is the easiest for you to expand, I'll just move souuth and consolidate Greece's power over its territories in North Africa. Now contrary to what those two who I'll not even name for fear I might say something I'll regret believe, all I'm trying to do is work this thing out and forge an allianceship. If you'd like anymore, 'll be willing to hear it, but please be willing to negotiate. If you want Greece to rescind its claims over the name of "Macedonia", then take the name, afterall it's just that-a name, there's no reason to argue over it. Mr.Xeight 21:25, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I was going to suggest Macedonia become a bridge between Greece and Turkey working out their problems, but consider that shot to Hell now... Mr.Xeight 21:26, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Mr.Xeight, my opposition (I can't speak for Yankovic) has nothing to do with you, or little to do with your article really. It has to do with OTL politics between Macedonia, Greece, and Turkey that wouldn't change post-Doomsday. OTL, Greece and Macedonia hate each other. Greece refuses to recognize Macedonia because of its name. Macedonia wants recognition and control of Greater Macedonia. Turkey and Greece don't hate each other necessary, because they're both in NATO and relations have been cooling, but they're not friends and are only peaceful because Greece realizes the would be utterly devastated by a military conflict with Greece OTL. These things wouldn't change post-Doomsday because they have to do with societal attitudes more than simple politics (which your statement "it's just a that-a name" shows your lack of knowledge/research into the subject since neither the Greeks or Macedonians see as "just a name").
Also, your deal allows Macedonia to gain nothing. They get peace with a nation that can't threaten them and, even with your new deal, get land they already control or soon will control because Greece is tied up elsewhere. All it does is make Macedonia an enemy of its ally, Turkey, and push the region closer to war. It's nothing more a thinly veiled attempt by Greece to disrupt regional politics and reduce Macedonia to a vassal state and its incredibly unrealistic at that.
Btw, as long as Greeks occupy any Turkish land, settlement of their problems is impossible. Plus, the populist climate in Turkey at the moment is pushing towards war as a way of national rejuvenation. Caeruleus 23:10, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? You don't think I don't read any of the Greek newspapers that fume over something as bloody silly as a name? This is post-Doomsday, you have to be pragmatic to survive-while nationalism might be a symbol of unity, it can also severly hamper survival when you call for the destruction of your neighbors. Look at the Glasgow Rangers-they know when it pays to be sectarian and when to stress good business ethics.

And I control Greece, I will decide when to say enough is enough. What I'm doing is survival. So why don't you piss off and let Owner and I talk about this; I'm trying to undo the wrongs I did to the innocent caretaker of Macedonia, and all you're doing is trying to destroy everything I'm trying to do. And don;t you think if Greece recognized Macedonia's claims of former-Greek Macedonia, Macedonia could rest easy and become a trading partner with Greece? Didn't you yourself say that Macedonia would need to rely on foreign goods for awhile?

And I was going to give back the small (it's nowhere near the size of what most maps show it as-the Dodecanese Anatolian-territory is quite small) Dodecanese Island claim back and try to bring about peaceful relations with Turkey and perhaps work out a deal on Thrace, but I will never work on anything with you.

Mr.Xeight 23:38, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Greece, and most nations of the Mediterranean, are past the survival stage. Countries now operate according to typical geopolitics, which involves societal beliefs, political and military calculations, and economic concerns.
You do control Greece, however, these are alternate histories and they are suppose to be realistic. If your ignoring things such as the name dispute with Macedonia, you're not being realistic.
And no, I don't think Macedonia would do that. They have no reason to do so. They stand to gain more from not treating with Greece than they do from treating with it anyway. And I said Macedonia is somewhat dependent on foreign weapons, not goods, and they get those weapons primarily from Turkey and the Alpine Confederation. However, in a few years, they'll be able to produce all their own weapons, so that's a minor concern. Also, you did no "wrongs" to Owner, so that's complete nonsense.
If you want to negotiate that's fine, but I offer no promises on their outcome. Propose it on Turkey's talk page and we'll discuss it. And, as you should know, if you refuse to negotiate with me, you essentially seal your fate. I know you don't like me, not that I know why, but that's no reason to be completely dismissive. Caeruleus 23:46, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Though I like the fact that you are actually willing to negotiate Mr Xeight (and not give any more demands disguised as negotiations) I have to agree with Caeruleus and Ownerzmcown. You have to choose between your neo-empire and control of OTL Greece. You can't have it both ways. Though you finally knuckled under, you just had to be a rude snob in doing it: "but I will never work on anything with you". Even I know that even the most expansionalistic nations have to stop somewhere. My Virginian Republic, which was the most expansionalistic state in North America (though now the Commonwealth of Kentucky has probbably taken that title.) has reached the point in it's history where the have decided that they are finished expanding. So I have to ask you one question: When will Greece reach that point? Better yet, will it ever reach that point?

Yankovic270 01:43, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Yankovic, you haven't exactly been the shining-example of level-headedness in the past, so I would kindly like you to please stop before anything worse happens. And Greece isn't going to expand anymore into North Africa, never will into Anatolia (apart from the proposed joint-Greco-Turkish-Rhodopian-Macedonian Reclamation project and those tiny villages near Rhodes which in my mind never exceeded past 6,000 people), and is now focusing on Central Greece. So, now I ask you, look at the bloody map and compare its size to the various North-American states; is the Peloponneso, Greek Islands, Nile Delta, Suez Canal, two coastl regions of Libya, and a few settlements near OTL Constantinople really that big? The Federation doesn't even control parts of OTL Greece for God's sake. Mr.Xeight 23:31, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

If I may, it's not the size of Greece that is the problem, as Yankovic and I similarly view it. The problem is what they've done and how unrealistic it is. First, Greece pre-Doomsday was heavily divided internally and still feeling transitioning to democracy from the end of the ruling junta a decade early, yet somehow post-Doomsday they miraculously united into only 3-4 states who fairly quickly agreed to reunite as a single nation. Second, Greece, a nation that pre-Doomsday was poorer overall and weaker militarily than most other Mediterranean states, was able to invade and conquer territories in Egypt, Libya, and Turkey, three nations that were wealthier, more populous, and stronger than Greece, who all happened to miraculously collapse. And none of these nations had a particularly favorable view of Greece pre-Doomsday so their populations would have greatly resented them. Third, somehow Greece managed to turn their relative small economy into a major economic powerhouse that was able to fund a small empire. Fourth, Greece seems to miraculously produce the military equipment necessary to stage major overseas invasions, which were within the capabilities of the Greek Navy pre-Doomsday. Finally, Greece, with its pathetic post-Doomsday population, is able to control and settle foreign territories with hostile populations with little problems or effort, such as the Turkish Straits, northern Egypt, and Libya. That's why Greece is unrealistic. Though Yankovic may be a little too passionate about his objections, he is correct. Realistically, Greece, as it is in this timeline, would have never happened.
However, that being said, there are other things to consider, which aren't necessarily anyone's fault. There are many things in the timeline that are unrealistic. For instance, Libya wouldn't have suddenly collapsed post-Doomsday. Saudi Arabia, for example, prospered post-Doomsday and was essentially in the same position as Libya, yet they didn't collapse. Also, despite these many flaws in this TL, there is a process for all this and one of those processes is canonization. Once something becomes canon, it must be accepted to maintain the stability of the althist. So, Yankovic, while you are correct about the flaws of Greece in this TL, accept it because you must. Mr.Xeight, stop continuing to propagate the implausibility that you often spread in things related to Greece, such as this proposal to Macedonia and your proposal to Turkey (which is essentially in the same situation). These are situations that are unfeasible OTL and wouldn't change ATL. While yes, you are the caretaker of Greece and you can lead them how you wish. This is an alternate history. You, as with the rest of us, must always maintain a realistic perspective and pursue a course of events that are plausible based off of historical fact, OTL events, and other trends.
Btw, Yankovic, politics has a way of bringing the world back to balance. Just as there are regular resets in geopolitical situations, there are resets in the status of nations. No empire has ever lasted forever and in recent time their existence has become progressively shorter. Just wait. Greece's time will come as well. Caeruleus 00:06, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible for the Greeks to have some, maybe minor interests in Eastern Asia Minor? I was thinking some weak, feeble, but existent movement like the Greek Trebizond Defense Agency or some little, insignificant political faction like that in the Eastern Turkish Wasteland. They could be all for restoring Trabzon and the Pontic coast of the Black Sea to the Greek Federation, even if that may never happen in this timeline. They would also add to the growing chaos in that part of the Turkish Sultanate but never be officially backed by the federation in Greece. --Emperor of Trebizond 23:52, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this is the wrong page for this. You'd want to do discuss this on either the Eastern Turkish Wasteland discussion page or the Sultanate of Turkey discussion page. Secondly, I'm the caretaker of all things Turkey, so that's largely up to me. Third, there are almost no Greeks in eastern Turkey (less than 3,000) and those who remained would probably have died post-Doomsday or considered themselves "Turkish". Most of them were exported during the population exchanges of the 1930s. Third, that's unrealistic. Greece wouldn't be able to stretch out that far, nor would the few Greeks who remain in the area who still considered themselves "Greek" be able to establish any sort of organization. Fourth, Greece has been primarily focusing its efforts in North Africa (until the mid-2000s when it began focusing on central Greece). Caeruleus 00:06, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Caeruleus I think your opinion of what a caretaker does is a little off (but maybe I am misinterpreting your words). Caretakers, out of respect, will be contacted first and have some level of deference when it comes to making decisions on a article. But this is a community project. New editors are encouraged to make edits on all pages. If caretakers start putting fences around their articles, problems occur. New editors may become discouraged and activity on the TL as a whole will wither. In summary Caretakers have some influence, but certainly they don't have a veto power. Anyway that is just my two cents. Mitro 02:01, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Let's face facts Xeight. Greece is surrounded by four nations (Sicily, Macedonia, Turkey and Egypt) that absolutely hate their guts. You've overextended the nation and it is surrounded by nations eyeing parts of it's territory like ripe fruit about to fall off the branch. I can see one outcome of this situation. And it involves the other nations carving up Greece like a Thanksgiving turkey.

Yankovic270 22:43, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not even the caretaker anymore, second of all Egypt is an ally, and third of all you act as if Greece has no allies whatsoever. Mr.Xeight 22:51, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Egypt is an ally by force only and Sicily can essentially block any ADC attempts to assist Greece. Caeruleus 23:13, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Um, no it's not, I was there when Mr. Hicken created Egypt and had it as a Greek ally, and Sicily isn't all powerful, even if it's pretty stable. Mr.Xeight 23:15, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Really? Then there are some major problems with the Egypt article too. No nation, especially one as nationalistic and proud as Egypt, would ally with a nation that annexed part of its territory for longer than they absolutely had to. And no, Sicily isn't all powerful, but their navy dominates the central Mediterranean and Adriatic Sea, which are the avenues any ADC assistance would need to pass through to reach Greece. Caeruleus 23:22, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Xeight, aren't you the caretaker anymore? Fedelede 23:10, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I gave the Federation of Greece to Oerwinde and Lordganon (only I haven't told Mr. Ganon yet since this was all decided last night. Surprise, Lordganon!) as dual-caretakers and I'll occasionally pop up from time to time to explore Orthodoxy in 1983:Doomsday, but that's about it. I've decided to pursue my dream of working on the Byzantine Empire and Crown of Aragon-to Empires that are hardly or inaccurately represented in American educational systems. Mr.Xeight 23:13, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a surprise.

Now, my few cents worth.

Caer, you and Owner both know my opinions of your articles. And that is that they are both just as "bad" as Greece is in your opinion. Owner has been willing to listen, while you have not, so his is fine. I am willing to work with him, but you are making it so I am fairly unwilling to work with you. That said, I am willing to try.

My opinion is that the Greece article as it stands is fine. And it seems that Oer feels the same way, by what he's done with the article.

Sicily is overstated and exaggerated. That it is has become painfully obvious to me as I've hunted around Italy for information for the Malta article. I mean, by most accounts there's even an ANZC fleet around Malta to defend it, for pete's sake! Sicily is a little stronger than Greece, but if you add all the other factors into the equation, they will lose, no question.

Turkey and Macedonia are both digesting recent conquests. While it is possible they would intervene - politicians can be incredibly stupid - it would be harmful for them to do so.

Egypt, while not liking the Greek interference, has accepted them. They may not be happy about it, but the Greeks have helped them to the point where they can live with it. Besides, much of the territory under their "control" in Egypt is their LoN mandate there, not Greek territory proper. But they are definitely not an enemy, and if they got uppity at all the Israelis would intervene, no question - the Greeks being where they are is in their interest, as a buffer of sorts.

We've given Owner Much of Northern Greece, though the borders still need to be fleshed out exactly. Caer, you surely have noticed that the claims near Rhodes and across the channel from what was European Turkey.

I do like the idea proposed by Xeight for some kind of condominium over Constantinople, though as far as I've seen no response was given to him.

I am willing to negotiate, but this is a give and take process. And I have seen little from you Caer, though Owner has been willing. And you are not him, so please quit speaking for him, Caer.

While I agree that this started as a bad attempt by Xeight to mend things, it can get better. But only if you allow it to occur, though you don't seem willing.

Lordganon 09:59, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how I've made you've unwilling to work with me, but that's your choice I suppose.

You're right about the Malta thing. I never got that, but there's also no mention of Malta in the Sicily article either. So the two articles could have been made separate from each other and never necessarily established the state of the other. And Sicily probably wouldn't want to start a war with the ANZC.

Greece is overstretched and most of the territory that borders Turkey and Macedonia is minimally populated (Such as Thrace and the Dodecanese Turkish Colonies), so even with the digesting of recent conquests it wouldn't be particularly difficult. An all-out invasion of southern Greece however would vastly overstretch both nations resource.

Yes. The Greece claim in the south is accounted for, as is their control of Thrace. I haven't responded to the condominium idea because I'd like to see the article graduated first. However, the proposal will probably be rejected because its unrealistic, especially for Turkey but also for Greece, and the would-be attitude of the Turks would be that in a few years they'd have nothing to fear from Greece. Caeruleus 15:42, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

You can make the same argument for the territory facing Greece in Macedonia.

Probably not, but the Sicilian leadership is not completely sane. News events from late 2009 show them picking a fight with the ADC and the ANZC fleet anyway. The best look at the situation prior to the start of the Second Sicily War may very well be in the Malta article, now. But, the presence of that fleet does mean Sicilian power outside of the Adriatic area would largely become nil, fast - and no reinforcements from Sicily that mean anything by year's end.

I figured that would be your response. I've moved my Bulgarian plans to include some of it, and would love to include Macedonia in it to some extent as well. But the most plausible way to do it doesn't include Muslims either. Trying to think of a way to make it work, mind.

The Egypt part was more so meant at Yank, but a bit to you as well, I guess.

It's not that I'm unwilling to work with you. Far from it. Rather, you've been very confrontational and very much so declining to work with others yourself. In my opinion, anyway, and by the looks of things a few others too.

But you're doing better as of late, I must admit.

Lordganon 02:35, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Is Sicily's leadership insane? I never got that impression, but I haven't read the news evens from late 2009 either. But the presence of a ANZC fleet at Malta to protect it in the name of the LoN doesn't mean ANZC would get involved. I doubt Sicily is North Korea-level crazy. And, in general, you, and many others, need to give Sicily more credit. Just because they've been branded a pariah state doesn't mean they're weak, incompetent, or crazy.
What are you moving your Bulgarian plans to include exactly?

Caeruleus 03:26, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Something along the lines of Xeight's idea. Some Bulgarian refugees from somewhere moving to Constantinople, nothing much more. Nothing very significant, to be honest, and I haven't given it too much thought beyond that at this point. Won't really do so until I get the war done, quite frankly.

I figure that something must be wrong with them if they actually start a war with the ADC, as well as not retracting the claim-demands that made the ANZC fleet go to Malta in the first place. Given the slated goals of Sicily, intervention in at least the Malta region, as well as the straits north of Sicily, is likely, to keep it safe. But those same goals would restrict their activity to this region. While not a member of the ADC, the ANZC fleet has similar goals, at least in part - and Sicily being aggressive in the region protected by the fleet certainly goes against their mission.

I'm aware I may be giving them less credit, but others - mostly you, to be honest - are giving them too much. Heck, the ANZC fleet at Malta likely is as strong as 2/3 or more of the Sicilian Navy is. Weak or Incompetent, they aren't - but to be trying what they are they've got to be a little crazy.

Lordganon 05:55, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Refugees from southeast Bulgaria would probably head south and become a significant minority.
You give the ADC far too much credit. They're nothing like pre-Doomsday NATO. The only two strong nations in the ADC are the Celtic Alliance and Nordic Union. The rest are rather weak. Portugal has a miniscule population and a tiny amount of territory. Spain is too busy dealing with reunification efforts on the Spanish mainland, and they also have a relatively small population and control an area (Western Sahara) that, pre-Doomsday, was essentially an unindustrialized desert. Corsica and North Germany also have similar problems. Greece is overstretched. Sicily has the population, resources, industry, and left over pre-Doomsday military equipment to take on most of the ADC, except the Celtic Alliance, Nordic Union, and to a slightly lesser extent Greece.
You're also not giving the Sicilian navy enough credit. They did inherit whatever ships of the Italian navy that survived Doomsday, and Italy had a top 10 navy pre-Doomsday. And there's no reason that the Sicilians would be incompetent in anyway. So far, from what I have gleaned from the article, they're intelligent, ruthless, and highly calculating. I also doubt the ANZC fleet there would be that large. Caeruleus 01:40, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Greece is roughly their equal. The Celts would contribute little until the fighting in North America is over, but the Nords would be involved from the get-go. I admit I may overstate the ADC, but you're overstating Sicily, so it works out.

They may have had a top-ten navy, but after the top 4 (Soviets, Brits, French, Americans) the drop-off is pretty steep. At DD, the Italians possessed only one ship stronger than a cruiser - the Giuseppe Garibaldi aircraft carrier - which was undergoing sea trials at the time. If it somehow managed to survive DD, it would have been somewhere in the testing grounds. By my guess, these would be fairly close to the shipyard it was being built it, which is near Trieste. If anything, it would be under the control of Venice or Slovenia.

This leaves them with cruisers or smaller in their fleet, as the last Italian battleships were gone by the 1960s. The news article states that it was an ANZC carrier fleet, which means a certain size fleet. Given the ships involved, it would be similar to the size of a modern USA carrier group. The carrier alone makes it as strong as the Sicilian Navy. The Celts, I seem to recall, have a carrier or two, and Spain did have a pair at Doomsday, though I do not know what became of them.

Lordganon 05:31, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

With the edits made to the Greece article, yes, Greece is roughly their equal, assuming they have the full cooperation of their population. And both our overstatements don't cancel each other out fyi. That will have to be generally clarified at some point.
What kind of carriers are these? Full fleet carriers or smaller carriers? There is a big difference between them. Also, if the Celts could build carriers and pre-Doomsday Italy could, its highly probably that the Sicilians can and probably have at least one.
Even if the ANZC had a fleet that large there, as long as no attack took place on Malta or any other LoN-administered territory, the ANZC probably wouldn't intervene. Also, SAC and Socialist Siberia would probably oppose intervention anyway. Caeruleus 18:37, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

The ANZC carrier is a full size, 90,000 odd ton displacement, US Navy carrier. Anything held by anyone else would range from 10,000 to 30,000 odd tons. There's a reason US carriers all called "supercarriers" ;) All the Spanish/Italian ones are 10-15,000 tons. See for battle group sizes. The Celts having them is a guess, but there should be at least one shipyard under their control that could make small ones.

Thing is, the major naval and shipbuilding yards in Italy - as far as I know, and the ship-building sites on wiki~ seem to agree - are in Northern Italy. There's a couple smaller yards that I see mentioned as being on the Italian west coast, so no idea where they are. But those were making minesweepers, so fairly harmless.

I've no doubt that Sicily does have some shipyards under its control, as well as most of what survived Taranto. But any new construction would likely be modified merchant shipping. Effective against merchants, but sitting ducks against warships. Some small carriers would be possible, but it would be a waste of time and effort, more likely than not. Better off building cruisers.

Defending Malta is only half of its mission. The rest is to keep the sea lanes secure, and open. While this would be intended for the Maltese Channel, The Straits of Messina would be likely kept open by the fleet for much the same reason. Given how things seem to work out, I suspect the movement of war supplies would violate their mission goals. While you're right that the SAC and Siberian would oppose it, I suspect that any intervention would take place long before they could do anything. And once something like that has happened, its hard to stop ;) And the inclinations of the fleet would more than likely to do so, or at least ignore the ADC ships ;)

Lordganon 10:34, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Finaly, something to do with ships and navies had come up in 1983DD. Ok based on both wikipedia and the articals on the wiki i have come up with an aproximate list of ships that every country around the mederterainian and north africa. I have also included other navies in the rest of the world that have blue water capacitys for referance. I have also included the reasons for thier survival in brackets. P.S this may be ongoingVegas adict 12:39, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

  • Sicily
    • Aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi (Sea Trials)
    • Destroyer Impetuoso (Only a posibility, it was due to be decomisioned)
    • Maestrale Frigates; Euro (Trials), Aliseo (Trials), Scirocco (Trials)
    • Posibly a Lupo class frigate
    • Destroyer Impavido (Exercises)
    • 2 Nazario Sauro class submarines (Trials)
  • Greece
    • 2 La Combattante IIa Missile Boats (Coastal Patrol)
    • 2 Type 209 Submarines (Submerged)
    • Escort Destroyer Aetos (D01) (Patrol)
    • Fletcher class Destoryer Velos (D-16) (Exercises)
    • Destroyer Kanaris (D212) (Patrol)
    • Destroyer Tombazis (D215) (Exercises)
    • Destroyer Apostolis (D216) (Trials)

As is allready clear the Greek Navy alone almost outnumbers the Sicilian Fleet, now we look at the fleet of the Celtic Alliance and Spain, the other two major naval powers in the ADC.

  • Celtic Alliance
    • 4/6 Amtrim class frigates (New Build)
    • 3 Dublin class destroyers (New Build)
    • 1 Sabre class amphibious assualt ships (New Build)
    • 1 Remembrance class light carrier (Possibly, depends on speed of construction)
  • Spain
    • Carrier Principe de Asturias (Still at shipyards)
    • aircraft carrier Dédalo (Exercises)
    • 2 Daphné class submarines
    • Destroyer SPS Gravina (D62) (Training)
    • Destroyer SPS Méndez Núñez (D63) (Not at Rota naval base)
    • Destroyer SPS Langara (D64) (Anti-Piracy)
    • 2 Baleares class frigates (Not based at Rota)
    • 2 Descubierta class corvette's (Trials)

From this we can deduce that even without the ANZC fleet off Malta Sicily stands No chance against the ADC at least navaly anyway.Vegas adict 12:39, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the research, though I see several things off.

  • Anything on sea trials at the time of DD means that they were either testing at sea, or in the shipyard. Usually, they wouldn't be far from the shipyard, in case of problems. The Italian navy was normally built in Northern Italy, so most of those ships are out.
  • Canon says the Spanish Fleet was largely destroyed, though the amount is debatable.
  • Celtic Forces are involved in North America during much of the war.
  • You're overstating the damage to the Italian fleet by the Taranto strike
  • Greece sounds about right, though I'd add some new construction to that. Sames goes for Sicily and Spain.
  • I'd think that at least some of these guys would have Cruisers!
  • Anything inside a shipyard is likely a write-off.

Lordganon 14:28, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I did actualy wipe out most of the spanish navy, Almost all of the destroyers and frigates were destroyed. One of the Italian Andrea Doria class cruisers may have survived Doomsday though wether it joined Sicily is not my decision. The Principe de Asturias was in a shipyard but acording to the Doomsday artical the city the shipyard was in wasn't attacked. The Giuseppe Garibaldi was on long range trials at the time while i included the other italian ships as otherwise the Sicilian Navy would be Very Small. Building ships is expensive and costly though and a cruiser can take up to 7 years.Vegas adict 15:06, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. I share many of the same concerns of Lordganon about ships in the ports of cities that were nuked and on sea trials and such. But, of course, more ships would probably be built post-Doomsday. Sicily was rather stable post-Doomsday and spent 15 years industrializing, so they would of course have an enlarged navy. A similar effort would take place in Greece. However, I doubt the Spanish navy would be particularly powerful. Pais del Oro would have lost control of almost all major Spanish shipyards post-Doomsday and neither the Canary Islands, Balceres Islands, or Western Sahara have major shipyards to my knowledge. Also, between attempting to reunify Spain and having to combat rebels in Western Sahara, the Spanish navy would be small, and possibly in disrepair. Caeruleus 20:10, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


I'm a little confused by the maps and the article in regards to Serbia. In the Croatia article, Serbia has annexed Kosovo and the Serbian parts of Bosnia. So the maps showing Macedonian control of Kosovo are inaccurate. Serbia also outpopulates Macedonia 4:1 and has a ton of veterens from the wars with Croatia and Slovenia so how can the Macedonian troops outnumber the Serbian troops? Or is it Macedonian serbs who declare independence and thats who the Macedonians are fighting?Oerwinde 21:09, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Its Macedonian serbs. Ownerzmcown 23:14, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

The recently added part about Serbia doesn't make much sense. Serbia came out of the collapse of Yugoslavia stronger than it was before, incorporating Kosovo, Montenegro, and the Serbian areas of Bosnia into the country.Oerwinde 23:37, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well when does Serbia form? Ownerzmcown 02:32, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

1989 is the end of the Bosnian war and Yugoslavia adopts the name "Federation of Serbia and Montenegro" according to the Croatia page. Oerwinde 02:44, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Kudos for at least putting something about Serbian contact in the article, but contact at that date makes no sense.

For Macedonia to control that area - with a surviving Serbian state - it has to be taken in the 1980s (sometime between 1985 and 1989, and closer to 1986-7 than not), when Serbian forces were concentrated in Croatia/Bosnia and thus weak in the border areas in question.

As for keeping the area, war exhaustion and a well dug-in enemy would likely keep them out.

2007 or later makes no sense - Greek forces knew roughly of the situation in Yugoslavia in the early 90s, at the latest, so there is no reason for an even closer nation to not have earlier knowledge.

Lordganon 22:02, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

So what do you guys suggest I change? Ownerzmcown 22:14, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

The Serbians not really worrying about the Macedonians controlling their territory is implausible. If they were willing to go to war with Croatia over the Serbian lands in Bosnia, actual Serbian territory they wouldn't just let go. If Macedonia still controls that territory today, it would have been taken after 1989 (Since Kosovo was part of Serbia as of 1989, and the map shows Kosovo as part of Macedonia.), and Serbia and Macedonia wouldn't have good relations. If they do have it, the only reason Serbia doesn't take it back would be Macedonia's alliance with Turkey, which is the only reason Greece doesn't reclaim their territory as well. This common cause would push Greece and Serbia closer together. I suggest abandoning Serbian territory, as Macedonia would be crushed in a war with Serbia and thats the only way they could claim that land.Oerwinde 22:18, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Fine, somebody can either make that map, or I'll make it later. Ownerzmcown 22:26, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

I read Turkey and felt the need to comment. LG is correct about the earlier contact date. Oerwinde is correct that relations would be, that Serbia would want their territory back desperately, and that the territory would have to be taken after 1989. However, it is plausible that Macedonia would control portions of southern Serbia, but the Serbian territory they control is probably less than what is currently indicated. And yes, Macedonian control of part of Serbia would push Serbia and Greece closer together. However, this would also push Croatia and Macedonia, along with Bosnia and Macedonia, closer together, which, together with Macedonia's alliance with Turkey, would balance out the pressure from Serbia/Greece. So, if there was a general Balkans war, Macedonia wouldn't be crushed. It would be a fairly balanced war that either side could win. Caeruleus 22:30, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Croatia and Slovenia are joining the ADC though, which would put them on Greece's side. Though Bosnia would be fully in the Turkish sphere, being Muslim. Being crushed I was talking more of a Serbia vs Macedonia war with no allies. With no other involvement, the Serbians would crush the Macedonians. With a general Balkans war with Croatia in the ADC, the Serbians would likely remain unilateral and attack Macedonia outside of an alliance with Greece, while the ADC and Rhodope are busy with Turkey.Oerwinde 22:37, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

  • Remove the part about the Yugoslavian collapse - never really occurred that way.
  • Have them run into Serbian troops while attempting to get deeper into Serbia instead of local warlords.
  • A sentence about something along the lines of Serbian troops never knew they were more than rebels or Croatians - both would likely be present.
  • Come to think of it, have the original goal being a monarchy - not constitutional - but made that way in a compromise with the locals.
  • Have them take over parts of southern Serbia, in the process of gaining Macedonia that were relatively undefended.
  • Able to keep these areas due to Serbian preoccupation elsewhere at first, and then later on due to the defenses.
  • Contact with Serbia would be by 1989 at latest, more likely than not.
  • Contact with Croatia and Bosnia about the same time.
  • Knowledge of Greece would be gained as well, though for other reasons - Macedonian designs on Northern Greece, call it - contact not made until 1995.
  • The Civil War could be seen as a Serbian attempt to regain annexed regions too, and only a failure in the end because of the Turkish troops loaned to them.
  • The collapse of the Kosovo state mentioned in the Serbia article would allow parts of that province to be taken over. Call it to prevent the Serbians from taking it all.
  • Remainder of story holds up, so long as whatever refers back to earlier, edited details, is changed as well.
  • Remember, the existence of Serbia would mean that intervention against Greece would be suicidal - especially with a vengeful Serbian state to their north.

Agreed about the war/ADC stuff.

You do have a right to some of the territory of southern Serbia, in my opinion - maybe not as much as on the map, but this article was filled out with maps of some sort long before Serbia was, so what you say should have some validity.

Lordganon 22:46, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Slovenia and Croatia wouldn't be against Greece because they were in the ADC, but that doesn't stop them from being against Serbia or mean they would declare war on Turkey in the event of a Balkans war. It's also doubtful that the ADC would be involved in any Balkans conflict. The ADC was created to defend against Sicilian expansion, not intervene in century-old ethnic and territorial disputes in southeast Europe. Portugal and Spain certainly wouldn't intervene. They have their own problems. The Celtic Alliance is busy in Canada and the Nordic Alliance is made up of what, pre-Doomsday, were some of the most peace-minded countries in the world. They certainly wouldn't intervene in this deep-rooted of a conflict unless some sort of major human rights abuse occurred (like a genocide) or a country was going to be outright annexed.
Why would Rhodope intervene? They would be far too busy with finishing off Vidin and integrating their newly conquered territories until 2015 or later. They also wouldn't be attacked by Macedonia or Turkey during this particular conflict.
Also, I agree with most of LG's points (I can't believe you changed what I called you btw). Caeruleus 23:47, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the Serbia Article, you can't really take anything from it because it conflicts with the canon Slovenia and Croatia articles. As for the ADC points, just because it was formed to take on Sicily, doesn't mean its only against Sicily. Its a defensive alliance, if a member state is attacked, the treaty signatories are bound to intervene on behalf of their ally or face international disgrace. Its the 83DD version of NATO. The Celtic Alliance is finished in Canada, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.Oerwinde 00:08, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing in either the Slovenia or Croatia articles that say Serbia didn't lose territory, so it doesn't violate canon.
The ADC is not a new NATO, and even NATO didn't declare war on every nation that attacked a NATO member because it, like the ADC, was formed to defend against a specific enemy, not all enemies. Argentina attacked Great Britain and no one in NATO retaliated. Greece and Turkey, who were both in NATO, almost went to war several times and Turkey invaded Cyprus, an nation strongly supported by both the Greeks and British. Today, several NATO members are not assisting in the War on Terror, which, though not a formal war, could still call for NATO assistance. I highly doubt the ADC would have the interest or capability in waging war against anyone in the eastern Mediterranean and Balkans except Sicily.
I didn't know the war in Canada ended. Caeruleus 00:56, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how much that bugs me Caer ;)

Rhodope has no reason at all to fight Turkey, barring an attempt to take back Thrace, or some sort of revolt by the Turkish League in Rhodope itself. Macedonia, of course, is another story, despite the agreement made. All it would take for war there, in the event of a general war, could be as simple as an excursion by the Macedonian Army into Bulgaria. But once the Vidin war is finished (by the end of September, honestly), Rhodope plans to apply to join the ADC, as per its great relations with Greece. On another note, Transylvania will support Rhodope militarily in any actions against their direct territory by outsiders.

Oer is right about the ADC - it is basically the same idea as NATO. Sicily merely caused its formation. The Saguenay War currently ends in April of 2010 (though given re-writing of the war to take more survivors in Ontario into account, this may change), so the Celts can and will intervene as needed elsewhere.

As for a Balkan war, to me it is more likely that the ADC, Serbia, and Macedonia/Turkey fight what amounts to a three-way war, with Serbia eventually giving up territory to one or the other and joining their side.

Really though, that's pretty irrelevant atm - none of that will occur anytime soon.

Lordganon 00:58, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

LG, obviously any war with Greece would involve the Turkish reconquest of Thrace. Though I fail to see why that would concern Rhodope, especially since Turkey has no long standing political or ethnic conflict with Bulgarians. I also think you totally missed my point that NATO doesn't even work like that in reality, so there is no reason the ADC would either. Plus, the ADC isn't nearly as powerful or far-reaching as NATO. But, you are correct. There's no reason to talk about this now. Caeruleus 01:23, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Because of your indents, I only read your comment before this one after I'd posted. There's a reason why you shouldn't use the things - no warnings come up about different versions of a page if that occurs.

At any rate, one last reply.

If you'd been paying any attention, Rhodope is slightly involved in Thrace. But the political makeup of Rhodope pretty well demands action against Turkey if it invades Thrace - and as stated, Transylvania would join them. And, like I said, plans are to join the ADC.

Caer, you quoted several examples where NATO did not work, but in each case there are reasons for it.

The European members of NATO did not want to be involved in what they perceived as a "colonial" conflict in South America in the case of the Falklands - the US and Canada did support the Brits in that, fyi.

Turkey and Greece were defused each time by NATO, if you didn't know. They'd have gone to war without the alliance, no question.

Have a look at and learn a bit. States in the first paragraph that they practice collective defense, which in their case means that (article 5 of its constitution) member states will assist another member under attack. After Sept 11 this was actually invoked, and those members who could support the US (not all can, obviously) in the war in Afghanistan did so. Anything after that is not the same war on terror anymore, in the same sense at least, and for Iraq, etc., the same clause was not invoked. As such, the ADC would defend its members to the best of their abilities.

Lordganon 01:55, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know about their joint control of Thrace with Greece, but with their current involvements in other areas of Bulgaria, relatively weak military, and no direct threat to Rhodopian territory, I still see no reason why Rhodope would enter a war against a superior enemy that has no ill-intentions towards it. I know how NATO works fyi and if there was a general Balkans War , it would also be a case that would have reasons why the ADC wouldn't intervene. Though, that's a conversation for another time. Back to Macedonia, once the amount of Serbian territory controlled by Macedonia is slightly reduced, this is ready to graduate. Caeruleus 02:07, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't planning on replying again, but if you're going to act like that I will.

Agreed about the graduation, but our opinions are not the only ones that count, unfortunately.

The joint control is what would get them involved in the event of a invasion of Thrace - Turkey wouldn't respect that control, and they want to stay. Contributions would be little, if at all, but it would still happen.

If you know how NATO works then why did you argue otherwise? You yourself said it was an alliance against one power - and the ADC was too - when it isn't true at all. >.>;

And any general Balkans War where the internationally recognized main territory of Greece is at stake would invoke the ADC. None of your examples involved that.

Enough of that.

Lordganon 02:54, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Fine, if you all think that I should give up my claims on Serbia, then make a map showing it, because I really suck at making these maps. Ownerzmcown 20:55, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. Macedonia still controls some of Serbia, but less than it did before.
GreaterMacedonia 10

Kingdom of Macedonia

Caeruleus 21:13, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

From Main Talk Page

Its a small nation in the southern Balkan peninsula, its a constitutional monarchy, based off mostly of the real Macedonia and headed by a real Yugoslav prince, living in Seville in 1983 which wasn't nuked (I checked). Ownerzmcown 02:31, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

You still dont get it - The list of targets is NOT COMPLETE. Seville is a major port and industrial center and as a result would have been clobbered. Also, you do not state how on earth he could have gotten all the way from there to Yugoslavia in the first place, or gotten all those men. And that's besides the fact that Yugoslavia was not hit at all and survived as a state until 1985.

The state is too large besides, and interferes with too much. Make it the size of modern Macedonia at MOST.

Lordganon 3:41, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Look, I know you're pissed about me saying Macedonia contacted Greece without talking to you, but I apoligized on the talk page. Plus, you operate a lot of countries who are large than Macedonia, and were established later than it. Ownerzmcown 3:47, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Ganon, please STAY OUT OF THIS. You are out of place here. Coming from someone who just started, his article is pretty good. Yugoslavia was NOT HIT WHATSOEVER. While I agree the borders should be like modern Macedonia, you cannot diss him and saying that Seville was hit is totally false. Yugoslavia was NON ALIGNED. It would not be destroyed. Arstarpool 05:17, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Seville is in SPAIN, Not Yugoslavia.

Lordganon 10:31, June 28, 2010 (UTC) Tehnically, the Croatia article I'm writing has Belgrade nuked and since Yank is doing Serbia and I think he agrees as well it would be nuked. If Vienna was nuked, why not Belgrade? The USSR already had plans to attack both countries in case of a war.--Vladivostok 12:27, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look on a map of Europe, the Greater Macedonia area is relativley small comapred to other nations. Ownerzmcown 12:50, June 28. 2010 (UTC)

I know where Seville is. And I don't know why a completely neutral, communist country would be hit by the USSR. Arstarpool 13:03, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well, then you'll have to ask yourself why Vienna was nuked. It was also as neutral as it gets.--Vladivostok 14:12, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, Vienna was nuked because the Soviets assumed NATO would violate the neutrality of Austria and move in for invasion through there. They took it out to neutralize a threat. If a neutral communist country is nuked it will be the allies that nuke it.Oerwinde 16:20, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I never really specifically stated who nuked Belgrade, just that it was obliterated. Now, in a conventional war, the Soviets, or NATO, which ever came first, would try to invade Yugoslavia. Now, that wouldn't happen during Doomsday. I just suspected that perhaps one of the superpowers, if not both, would try to take Yugoslavia out of the equation in Europe during the nuclear exchange.--Vladivostok 16:31, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly we had a discussion on whether Yugoslavia was nuked about a year ago; therefore the caretaker of Macedonia and whoever else wants to prove his own opinion is true will have to dig through the Archives to the find it. Though I have to warn the caretaker of Macedonia; generally speaking when a nation is up for debate on whether it was nuked or not, I can't think of a time (remember I'm older and went inactive for months, I can't talk about the recent past) when any nation in question was spared; the council of contributors usually ruled in favor of any sort of bombings, probably based on the idea that NATO or the Warsaw Pact would bomb them "just to be on the safe side". Mr.Xeight 19:17, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the list of targets is unconfirmed, and needs to be updated. Spain is no exception, and I find it hard to believe that Seville would not be hit. Even it it wasn't, it is not explained how on earth he'd get there in the first place. If he were to somehow survive the hit, it is extremely unlogical for him to have not only made it to the bunker, but also survive with so many followers and gotten there in the first place.

And, as I noticed on the talk page for the article, it is illogical that a bunch of Greeks and former communist subjects would except him as king anyway. The chetniks from the war and the anti-royal propaganda afterwards would argue against it, anyway.

Lordganon 03:37, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I think that I've got most questions answered in the article and that the major points of the article are finished, so I believe my article should be read over now and considered for the canon. Ownerzmcown 02:03, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

This "bunker" seems a little fanciful. Did Alexander actually have one in Spain? Can you provide a source to prove it? Mitro 02:31, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
I can in fact, not provide a source as of yet, but good reasoning, Alexander was and is a very important person in society, he is the Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, which although isn't a country anymore, he still is a high-ranking member of a historical society and would easily be given permission and money to build a bunker. Ownerzmcown 02:49, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
We can't just assume he would have a resources to build it even though he is a VIP. There were a lot of VIPs during the Cold War who had the resources to build nuclear bunkers and didn't. Assuming that this exiled royal did have a bunker without any source is too ASB. Mitro 02:55, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

You can't keep track of everything in history, Alexander lived in Spain, I believe as a guest of the King of Spain, and there is a distinct possibility he had hereditary connections to the Spanish Royal Family, the Spanish Royal Family was very important at the time, and probably had bunkers for multiple members, maybe even Alexander, I can't say exactly, besides the only way I'll really ever know is if I asked Alexander himself, besides, one, that will never happen, and two, it is in my opinion an interesting part of the story that makes sense in multiple ways. Ownerzmcown 21:31, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

This TL is supposed to be as realistic as possible. Thus we try to keep it as plausible as possible. Article have been marked obsolete that assumed that a person or place would be overly-prepared for Doomsday when they were not. When Yank proposed a new Germany article he had the founder of Aldi apparently buy land in Saudi Arabia before Doomsday, even though there was no proof of this. An early version of the Republic of Indiana had Dan Quayle apparently knowing that Doomsday was going to happen and thus warn the Governor of Indiana to prepare for it. Again no proof that this happened, these were guesses and in my opinion bad guesses. With your assumption about Alexander you admit yourself that you have almost no way to prove that he had a fallout shelter/bunker. To just assume might be interesting, but it is not plausible. Mitro 02:56, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm ust saying, even today we know that everything in history was never written down, thats why we know what we do about Ancient Egypt and such, their are the parts of history we can prove, like Alexander was from Yugoslavia, and the parts we can't prove due to no documentation and have to assume, like Alexander, a crown prince, having a bunker. Ownerzmcown 07:28, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

We make assumptions about ancient history for a reason, because it was really long ago. The year 1983 is not ancient history. Ben once found the names and location of the daughters of the governor of the governor of Bermuda. We don't just assume someone was somewhere or had something just because they were an important person. By 1983 the bunker craze was already long gone and if we assume one VIP had a bunker than we have to assume that every VIP has one, which does not make sense. If you can prove he had a bunker than great, but if you can't than its logical to assume that he did not have a bunker. Mitro 16:04, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Alexander was a member of the British Royal Family until 1972 when he married a Catholic dutchess from Brazil/Spain (not sure on that one) because he was a descendant of Victoria and Alfred, her second son, in the 1950's from fear of a Soviet nuclear threat, the British royal family built large underground cities and bunkers for each member of the royal family. If by 1972 he was living in Spain, he would still have an estate where he had access to a bunker because as a partial descendant of both the Spanish and British royal family, he would be given a bunker as both royal families thought important that all members have one. Ownerzmcown 13:45, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I've changed it so now it says he was having a bunker constructed prior to DD due to rising tensions between east and west and had it expanded upon days before DD and after it, too. Ownerzmcown 12:12, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that Alexander would have a bunker. Where exactly do you draw the line on the British Royal Family? Most of the royals on the continent are related to them, would the British government shell out cash for all of their relatives, even those who are not even citizens of Britain? Mitro 21:21, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
Look at an ancestry family tree for Alexander and he has ancestors who are British royals, and, although he wasn't a real king, he was a high-ranking member of society to many people, and was inevitably connected personally to members of the British Royal family, they would likely have given him a bunker, and if you read the article you'd see that I changed it to say he had one under construction due to recent tensions between the US and the USSR, and had it finished before DD. Ownerzmcown 22:08, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
I saw that, but since it is information pertaining to pre-Doomsday it needs to be 100% factual, or else it becomes the POD of the TL if it predates the current POD. So again, do you have any source that states he had such a bunker? If not we are making assumptions. Mitro 22:21, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Look Mitro, many people don't know who Alexander is, I didn't know him until just a few months ago, I doubt with the resources I have that I could find out much about the bunkers of Europe's royal families, presidents have tons of bunkers that we probably don't know about, is that an asumption, yes, but is it true, its very likely, and its the same with Alexander, and people still do this with modern, history, we don't exactly know, so we must assume. Besides the timeline has hundreds of PODs, every country from this TL is made by a POD which makes mine insignifigant in my opinion. Ownerzmcown 00:26, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know history on every article remains the same until the ultimate POD of this TL. All other changes to history are based from that point. If that is not the case please point it out to me. As for your proposal, Alexander might not be that well known, but I have seen people find information on some pretty obscure topics on this wiki. If you have made a good faith attempt to find out whether Alexander prepared for some future nuclear conflict and did not find anything, then the most logicial assumption is that he did not have one. I'm not sure why its more logical to believe he did have one. Presidents have bunkers, but sitting presidents are different from exiled-heads of royal houses. Now we can continue this back and forth, but I would like to hear what the other editors have to say? Mitro 02:14, August 10, 2010 (UTC)'
Before I could write my article on the Piedmont region of South Carolina, I had to deal with a fictional uprising of African Americans that took Anglo Americans as slaves. While I was trying my best to use real people, a city-state in my "back yard" had been created that was rather implausible. I first created a character to take over Anderson, SC, but then was able to find a real person that who rose in importance AFTER 1983 but fit the need quite well (he was unaccounted for in 1983 and was from South Carolina originally). I say this to defend the survival of Prince Alexander. If he was in Seville, Spain, and it was not on a list of nuked cities, then QSS over-rules the more nebulous QAA. We should not assume an important European city was a primary target unless it has NATO or US troups stationed there. Spain was not a strategic threat to the USSR at the time, so Seville should be assumed safe. How Alexander got to Macedonia, and whether the Yugoslavs would accept him, are different questions. But I don't see any reason why he need have been in a bunker to have survived. SouthWriter 03:33, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

The Jordan article has the King return from Thailand to resume leadership of his country. If the Jordanian King can return from a country in another region, then it is plausible that Alexander could have returned from Spain.

Yankovic270 06:20, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sure I've got all points covered and that my article is ready to be graduated. Ownerzmcown 18:15, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Can we please drop the part about the bunker. If we assume South is right that he would have likely survived without it, why is it so necessary that he have it? The fact that it is in the article and there is no proof he owned such a building is very implausible. Mitro 18:40, August 23, 2010 (UTC)


Since there are no further objections, I think this deserves to finally be graduated. Caeruleus 18:49, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Err.... have a look at the main 1983 page.

Lordganon 05:49, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. That takes 2 seconds to fix. Caeruleus 15:38, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

I see you missed the list of things to fix and only saw the response I gave to his question. A lot longer than two seconds, Caer.


Lordganon 04:29, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry I'll get to that list when I'm ready, and by saying when I'm ready I mean when I feel like it.

Ownerzmcown 04:38, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

No worries Owner, I know you'll get to it.

Lordganon 06:04, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking, if Macedonia made contact with the Virginian Republic, wouldn't also be able to make contact with the rest of the Dixie Alliance?Ownerzmcown 12:16, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Truthfully, its a little far-fetched to have contact with Virginia as it is. But the other members don't have any ports at all, so not likely more than merely hearing about them.

Lordganon 12:36, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah there's no way contact with Virginia is possible. That's just Yank and his odd dreams of grandeur for Virginia as a world power. So I'd remove that. Arstar 17:07, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Virginia is a member of the LoN, which means they're connected to world communication networks, like Macedonia. That means contact is possible, but trade is probably not. Caeruleus 20:52, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Some of the elements in Yank's Superpower in Virginia is "less than plausible" some say so even contact isn't likely. Mentioning any North American country outside of Canada or Bermuda is pretty much unlikely. Arstar 21:18, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Virginia isn't a massive superpower, at most its a regional power, which is very plausible considering how much West Virginia was spared on Doomsday.Oerwinde 21:31, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

The Virgnians have recently gained a humble port facility in Hopewell, "East" Virginia. They have also recently made contact with (and gained membership in) the LoN. They could have heard about Macedonia from any of the other diplomats.

Yankovic270 21:37, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now that I've changed all the parts I deemed necessary, which was most of them, I believe its all good. Ownerzmcown 20:22, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

You need to give a reason why Serbia couldn't just regain its territory, and a reference to Serbian involvement in the Civil War would be a must.

Don't forget to review the rest of it for references to what has been just changed, too.

Lordganon 20:29, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

What is left now? Ownerzmcown 20:59, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

As we discussed on the timeline talk page, the Greek contact really should be adjusted slightly.

Virginia has a recently-established, tiny port. While I like the concept, it should really be changed to another country, thought not required. Somewhere in the SAC would work.

Other than that, I suggest you read over it. You'll find turns of phrase, etc. you don't like, I guarantee it.

Lordganon 21:32, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

First, what date should they make contact with Greece, I'm thinking 1993, maybe 1994, and two, why can't they have had contact with both Virginia and an SAC country, and if there is contact with an SAC country, I'm thinking either Venezuela or Brazil. Ownerzmcown 00:54, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

I meant that Virginia couldn't possibly send the arms - despite Yank's opinion (which no one agrees with) - not that they couldn't have contact. I'd make it Brazil, myself. And the arms from them too, mind.

Go with them encountering forces from Heptanesa inside Albania in around 1991, but no relations of any kind established at the time - call it distance between them.

Lordganon 01:23, November 21, 2010 (UTC)I

I'd recommend keeping Virginia out of this completely, as there have been cases where people have even disputed Virginia's LoN plausibility. Make it Aussie or Brazil or somebody. Or even Canada, but nothing else. Arstar

Okay, I've made the final changes, but so you really think they would make contact with Australia? Ownerzmcown 03:37, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Considering the ANZC has a fleet stationed at Malta, perfectly possible. Besides, they have a lot more than one tiny port like Virginia, lol.

The Macedonian Contact dates with Turkey need to be adjusted (don't know why you changed them) to the ones in the Turkey article. First one is fine, but the second one is the issue. It sounds an awful lot like an alliance is established with the meeting of the sultan and the king, and Turkey says 1995 for that. The reference to "what would become" the Confederation needs to be changed to just "the confederation." Not having 1995 also contradicts Rhodope as well, come to think of it.

Lordganon 22:04, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what else is left now? Ownerzmcown 22:33, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Contact needs to stay on the south coast, but Izmir is not there at all. Either remove that part of the reference, or change it to somewhere on the south coast.

And it still needs a readover, correcting turns of phrase, grammar, etc. I'll do that, if you'd like.

Lordganon 01:32, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

I'll change that part, I only put it on because it was in the Turkey article. And yeah, it would help if you did the grammar check. Ownerzmcown 02:15, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I'll get to it sometime tonight.

Lordganon 02:34, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Whew. That was a lot of work, lol.

And now I can read the thing, lol.

I fixed a couple inconsistencies I noticed while I was at it as well.

A little critique with your writing:

  • There was a TON of run-on sentences in there!
  • Probably the most common error was you writing "their" when you meant "there" and vice-versa.
  • Paragraphs!!!!!

Lordganon 13:53, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Thnx, and jeez, u sound like my english teacher. lol ;)~

Ownerzmcown 20:26, November 22, 2010 (UTC)


Thought about it - you may want to move the History to a "History of Macedonia" page, Owner. It's rather.... long.

Lordganon 10:51, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

2011 Election

Hey LG, I'm planning to make a part about the next general election, which I'm thinking will be in April 2011. I'm thinking of a few main issues that they'd have to deal with, and I want to know what you think:

  • Relations with Serbia and Greece
  • Future of Albania
  • Development of the Macedonian Economy
  • Something about a national bank
  • Probably something having to do with national transportation
    Ownerzmcown 19:37, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

 Relations with Serbia are improving, that much is obvious. I would think that most parties in Macedonia would want this to continue, so long as the socialists/minority parties stay in power there. Of course, Serbian parties and any fascist types would not be wanting this, but they ain't winning, for sure.

I would think that relations with Greece are going to improve somewhat eventually. Not entirely sure how that will happen, mind, though I expect I'll have a couple ideas by this election. Some parties will be in favor of better relations with Greece (more so the left, I expect), while others will be against them (nationalists and parts of the right). Something like the setup in Thrace with Rhodope being put in place around Salonica, maybe. Like I said, I'll think about it.

Albania.... I would expect the issue would be more so than anything what to do with their vassal there. Myself, I would have it between independence for it, or annexation. I figure roughly the same split as on Greece. I personally think annexation is best - and a potential spot for relations with Greece to improve (i.e. no Greek opposition to the annexation if Macedonia does not oppose them taking the south, etc.). Not like that was not the original plan Serbia and Greece had for the region in 1912, lol.

I doubt the economy would be much of an issue - seems to be going well enough. Will help the current government though (stability, etc.)

The creation of a National Bank would be a great issue. Parties that want to expand international trade and business would like the idea, especially if based in cities, and those that are more isolationistic or rural-based would oppose it.

As for national transportation, go for railroads. They are the new big thing in this world. Have a look at railway companies and their financial schemes for being set up, and have various parties support various models.

Lordganon 21:57, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

The idea for a national bank would be that I will ass there will already be a national bank, but like in early America, it became corrupt and then the conservatives would want it to remain, albeit with an investigation into the corruption, while the liberals would like to have it broken into a system of regional banks. Thinking about it now, I think it would be caught between the conservatives simply wanting more free trade in the country and tighter integration, versus the liberals who might want to give more freedom to Albania and the Albanian sectors. I think the public would not support full annexation. The economy issue is that I think at this point is Macedonia's economy is rapidly expanding and the idea of where to develop would be split between the conservatives and the liberals. The idea for national transportation would be between highways or railroads. Ownerzmcown 22:11, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Who are you planning on winning the election? Caeruleus 22:17, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think that's to a point what he's trying to decide.

Yeah, that sums up the bank situation pretty well.

Slow integration for Albania would be better, true enough. Call it choosing being further integration and independence for now, then.

Economy wise, people always tend to keep the party behind the economy in power. You're right about them having a dispute, but it's unlikely it would hurt the governing party, whichever one it is.

At this point, I'd go with the railroads since they would likely be the better choice. They'd be favored by more right/center people first, and the left second. The opposite for roads, mind.

Lordganon 22:24, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Currently, the Conservatives hold the Presidency and the majority in the Assembly, so that kinda gives them an advantage. The next possible option for the election would probably be either the Liberals or the Socialist, fyi, thinking of shortening the name. Ownerzmcown 22:31, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Shorting the name of what?
If the Conservatives are currently in power, the economy is good, and the banking dispute is the biggest of their problems, I think the conservatives would win. There is no reason for them not to win unless there are other And, btw, liberals and conservatives would agree on the need for a central bank since all major modern economies OTL and ATL have central banks. If there was an issue over the bank, it would either over the conduct of the investigation, the structuring of the bank, or the type of economic actions the bank would take to assist the economy.
Why would they choose between highways and railroads? A nation needs both for a well-rounded economy. Caeruleus 22:39, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Yeah, they probably would win still. I would increase the Socialist and/or Liberal numbers a touch though, after the election. Call it something to do with Albania, or maybe simply voter fatigue (parties in power tend to loose a seat or two in such cases)

He shortened the Socialist Party name slightly.

Lordganon 22:44, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I came to thinking about this, and I was wondering where, do you guys think the two main parties, Conservative and Liberal would get their voting bases from? Ownerzmcown 07:08, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

To a certain extent, Conservative and Liberal Parties tend to have a lot of the same potential supporters - the moderates will tend to fall between the two parties and swing one way or the other depending on the political climate.

Key supporters for both....

Well, the Conservatives will likely split the rural vote with the Socialists - rural folk tend to be more conservative, but at the same time are often the most in need of socialist aid. They will also have the elite and business types in their corner in many cases - normally the liberals would have a chunk of this too, but I suspect here the socialists would have their chunk. A fair amount of the middle class as well.

The Liberals will attract a small amount of union support, and do a little better in both cities and the middle class than the Conservatives. A fair number of poor would likely vote for them too.

Essentially: Conservatives have rural vote, and the upper crust for the most part. Liberals have a more broader base, but less in each than the Conservatives have in their power bases - tend to have the middle class vote.

Also, the Conservatives would likely lose a couple seats, to the benefit of the Socialist or Freedom parties.

Hope that helps.

Lordganon 07:54, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking about this and I thought that I believe that the Liberals should win, and that perhaps this could be modeled on the election of 1828. Ownerzmcown 14:01, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the American election of 1828? And if so, that election was a victory for the Democrats who championed populist power. If the Liberals are the champions of populism, then I suppose that would work. However, domestic issues are always the most important and since Macedonia seems to have few domestic problems, the Conservatives would have a strong platform to push for relection.

Also remember, moderates generally vote for whatever party is responsible for economic prosperity, which in this case would be the Conservatives, so they would probably get a majority of the moderate vote. And under which party was the bank founded and allowed to become corrupt under? Which every party allowed that would lose a substantial number of votes.

Caeruleus 17:43, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Have a look at elections in which the economy is doing well, without any major domestic issues. Usually, the party in power when it starts doing well will stay in power.

They do tend to bleed off a couple seats to parties that champion some sort of new idea, but.... It's rarely more than a couple.

True enough, however - all of this would depend somewhat on the bank.

Lordganon 21:43, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I also need one of those maps that shows all of the states or provinces and colors them according to which person they vote for. Ownerzmcown 00:07, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Also guys, I was thinking that after the election, which I now plan to have the Conservatives, the Liberal and Socialist Parties, to form a better barrier to the Conservatives, merge into the Social Democratic Party. Ownerzmcown 03:54, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

A merge of the two would work, I think. As for a map, I'll fashion one tomorrow if you give me a list of provinces and who voted what. Lordganon 10:01, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

So here are the provinces in Albania, basically I kept their names:











Macedonian Elbasan











Greek Macedonia

Two things, first, I actually just pasted this off a powerpoint, two, I'm not sure what the vote would be for

these provinces though.

Thanks LG, I have no idea how it got like that, but here the provinces, and I'm not sure which way they would go. Ownerzmcown 13:00, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I figure it's just part of the powerpoint thing. Lesson is to always preview your edits, lol.

I'll work on a map for ya. Aim for later tonight, expect in the next couple days.

Lordganon 00:19, January 27, 2011 (UTC)


Here you go. It's a tad rough, and I'm sure a boundary is off somewhere - I tried, and failed, to get the boundaries on it without drawing them in myself. Also did not adjust international boundaries really, either.

Used your list of provinces as a guide, but a few of them would not have been possible to do, lol - Macedonia just possess too little of it for it to matter. So, those were split/added to their neighbors. Divided Greek Macedonia into three provinces as well.

All you have to do is change the colors of the provinces to fit who would win that province. In case it's not 100% clear on the map (going by otl country) there is: 5 Albanian Provinces, 1 Serbian Province, 2 Kosovo Provinces, 1 Montenegrin Province, 7 Macedonian Provinces, and 3 Greek Macedonian Provinces. For the Greek Macedonian and Albanian ones you may need to zoom in a bit to catch one of them.

Hmmm... I think I will make you a new overall map based on this one, lol.

Lordganon 10:01, January 27, 2011 (UTC)


Heh. Enjoyed that, lol. Not as zoomed in as the other, but it does look better. Use it if you'd like.

Lordganon 11:10, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me too - it might be a good idea to make a "region" type government, kinda like the set-up in modern France, for over the provinces too. You've got 4 semi-distinct regions, after all - Albania, Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia, and Greek Macedonia.

Just a thought.

Lordganon 13:01, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

But I don't really see the advantage of that versus the entire parliament idea, I think just go with the one we've already got, also I still can't exactly determine which provinces would vote for which. Ownerzmcown 14:15, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

I'll give winners a bit of thought, Owner. The map should easy enough to adjust and post another version in that regard, lol.

As for the region bit, its more of an organizational thing that a Parliament thing. Just thought I'd scribble that in near the map, lol.

Lordganon 14:28, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Population and the Military

So I'm basically having two dilemmas right now, one is the current population of Macedonia, I was thinking I should probably change it like every New Year's Eve. And two, I think the number of tanks and aircraft in the military should be specified, and I'm not sure how many of each their should be. Ownerzmcown 22:45, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Each new years would be ok, I guess. Based on population data for Macedonia from 2002-2008, otl the area has about a 0.2% growth rate a year. Atl, I'd increase this to about 1.1% a year.

Will get back to you on the rest.

Lordganon 22:55, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Population should be down-scaled a bit as well. What you have is pretty much the exact population of all the territories Macedonia holds at OTL population numbers. With all the war, refugees, ethnic cleansing, nuclear fallout, lower population growth, etc. It shouldn't be that high. It should be more around 3,200,000 I think.Oerwinde 23:00, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

The higher birth rates and the population increase from the influx of refugees could make up for most of that. None of the conflicts were extraordinarily devastating anyway.

You don't have to specify the number of tanks and aircraft unless you really want to. Most articles don't. If you are going to however, keep it reasonable. I'd say the minimum would be 150-175 tanks and at least 24-36 aircraft. There could be more than that based on recent increases in imports and the number of tanks/aircraft recovered. Caeruleus 00:27, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

1.1% increase sounds about right, so I'll calculate that soon. As for tanks, I'd think somewhere between 175-200 would be about right, and I'll have to think about the number of aircraft. Ownerzmcown 01:51, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

I believe with the limited production facilities that Macedonia has, a small trade with Turkey, and leftover tanks/planes from the 80's, both those numbers are feasible. Mind you, most will not be modern, or else they will be too high. Lordganon 07:59, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Of course the tanks wouldn't be modern. I would think that they would be a mix of old Soviet tanks mixed with obsolete Turkish imports. Let me remind everyone that in much of the world tank development stalled twenty years ago. Thus no American nation (even if there is one with the necessary resources to manufacture one) has developed anything close to an Abrams. --Yank 14:30, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

The Turks are selling them modern tanks, not obsolete ones. Modern atl tanks, that would prolly be almost equivalent to tanks from the 1970s with a few modern innovations. Why on earth would they be modern otl tanks? Sigh...

Lordganon 21:46, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Should I put up something about them having Turkish tanks? Ownerzmcown 21:51, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

May as well, its somewhere on the wiki already if memory serves. Lordganon 10:00, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I was also thinking about making a page for the military section, thoughts? Ownerzmcown 11:52, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a big enough section so it may be worth it. Go for it. Lordganon 12:58, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.