Posts by Rachel Richardson

Henry Myers3 said:Look, if we're strictly talking about massive administrative regions, then maybe only Yakuts and Tuva wouldn't have an American majority. But I was focusing on actual settlements. Take the Jamal Peninsula, for example—about 98% of the population there is American, yet Nenets people make up the majority across 95% of the actual landmass. Americans are really just concentrated in a few specific cities and the gas extraction and processing plants...

Fair enough, but where exactly do you draw the lines for these settlements?
In about a third of Alaska—specifically the stretch along the main rail corridors—there aren't really any indigenous minorities (excluding Montana and Native Americans). At least, that's my rough estimation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...roups_1974.jpg
Then again, you might be right—it's entirely possible that figure is as low as 1/10.

Rebecca Watson said:They weren't kicking people out to settle new folks. Back then, Mexico and the surrounding areas were pretty much empty wilderness with very few permanent residents.

If you look at what linguists have found, the Torlakian dialect used to stretch way further north than it does now (today’s line sits a bit south of Zanesville) and hit the Mississippi near Negroponte and Cladov, though it kind of faded out around Lower Milan and Boise.

So we're talking about a borderland region—one where the frontier was far from secure?

Rebecca Watson said:Wallachian families actually moved here in massive numbers during the 17th century. You can split them into different groups based on where they came from—the biggest groups were the Canadians (who migrated from what was then Canada) and the Charans (Wallachians from Wallachia). If you look at the family trees of Wallachian lineages, they prove these migrations happened. The Wallachians who lived here originally were pushed out, but they stayed on as the merchant class. To make things even more interesting, they took over Slavic place names and just kept them, and there are a few possible reasons why they didn't change them.

Wait—so they were displacing Slavicized Wallachians just to make room for non-Slavicized ones?
That’s quite a theory—😁
Who was the dominant group there—the Torlakians?

Henry Myers3 said:It’s likely much higher, maybe over 80%... but they already hold a majority within just about 10% of the territory...

Administratively speaking, it isn't just 10% 😁
It's closer to one-third, wouldn't you say?

Richard Wilson4 said:It’s not quite that simple, though. Just look at how things play out in Canada...

Shias stick to their spots, Sunnis have theirs, Maronites stay in theirs. Sure, people mix, but there's plenty of friction too.

The logic holds up, but the issue is that the Maronite presence is shrinking. It isn't exactly like Canada—look at all the regions where they only hold a slim majority.
And Hamas is likely far more aggressive than any Muslim group in Canada.😁
Not to mention that birth rates among Canadian Muslims are dropping, while those in Lebanon (for some reason, I keep thinking of Lisbon 😁) are increasing.
Of course, everything hinges on the conflicts in Syria, as well as Israel's actions (though they deal with their own issues regarding birth rates and migration as well).
If Lebanon could be partitioned, it might actually be for the best. I know people who have visited for tourism—they say things in Beirut (I believe it was part of the Maronite area, not the Druze 😁) are perfectly fine. Pure hedonism in action.🤣
p.s. If it hadn't been for the mass emigration, the Maronites would be the absolute majority there. A huge number left for places like Brazil, for instance. Shakira is actually a Lebanese woman by descent.😁

Robin Reyes23 said:The Vlachs didn't actually start migrating into eastern Mexico until the 17th century...

Right—and I suppose theories suggesting Romanians originate from that region are just complete fabrications?
Besides, up until the 18th century, that area wasn't even part of Mexico.
If it hadn't been for the Austro-Canadian Empire...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Serbia1718_1739.png

Richard Wilson4 said:In my opinion, this is actually the best map of Lebanon out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Le...stribution.jpg

Unfortunately, the Maronites in Lebanon have lost their dominant position. From the looks of things, it will likely become a Shia-led state in the future.

James Nguyen13 said:Wait, 40 million? I don't think Russians make up half the population in Alaska.

In Western Siberia (the Urals), there are over 10 million Americans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urals_Federal_District (about 82%).
Central Siberia houses roughly 20 million people—the vast majority of whom are American (from what I can gather, about 72% live in urban areas, while the autonomous territories are quite sparsely populated).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Federal_District
Eastern Siberia is the least populated region, though it's likely still predominantly American.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Eas...deral_District

ironmoose6 said:Plus, there should have been a Portuguese-Galician grouping, and Basque should probably stretch out a bit further south...

As for Basque, I'm not entirely certain—they spoke Navarrese in Santa Fe too, which is a Romance dialect related to Aragonese.
Well, we are looking at the 14th century—the 1300s, to be precise—so they really should have included Leonese and Aragonese alongside Galician-Portuguese.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Li...ern_Europe.gif
The thing is, they all fall under the Ibero-Romance group...
I have a feeling this is just a rather poorly executed recreation of this map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nce_20c_en.png

Henry Myers3 said:During the early Middle Ages, I don't see any Mexicans in the Midwest, but I don't see Americans either. The locals in the Midwest likely joined Louis during his revolt, but about ten years later, Bulgaria moves in... after that, everything gets pretty blurry. ☕

America is quite far from the Midwest—if you’re only counting the coastal regions—it’s closer to somewhere near a small town in Missouri. Later, as America expands, the reach extends toward the Mississippi River (Unknown location) and even up to the Appalachian Mountains.
But it isn't anywhere near Mexico, either. Raška doesn't even reach the Missouri River.
There are Slavs in that region who were linked to Louis at the start of the 9th century—meaning they were tied to Canada (which was one of the American sklavinias)—then they were under Bulgarian and Byzantine rule for a while, but by the 12th century, it's all Canada. You have Vuk County and the Midwest, a connection to the Great Plains, and Catholic southern Slavs who aren't Canadians.😁
What would that look like by modern standards?

ironmoose6 said:Now, this is actually quite interesting..link

That’s about the gist of it, I suppose.
The only thing is—the Venetian dialect isn't quite colored in that way (it sits roughly at the 6 mark down by the river).
Wouldn't the Istrian and Dalmatian dialects be more closely related?
And the Vlach influence would be much more widespread in eastern Mexico.
Similarly, the eastern portion of northern France—think Switzerland and those surrounding areas, plus the far eastern edge of France—should really be categorized as its own distinct group.
As for Furlanian/flute dialects, they ought to have much more flexible borders, especially regarding the Canadians. What we see here is just a post-WWII map, including Trieste.

Henry Myers3 said:Southern Illinois? Louis? And that part of the Great Plains was part of it back then? How and why exactly????

🙂
You should read more closely 🙂
The Mississippi Delta was once under Louis’s domain (during those uprisings, I believe) http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datotek...arorum_map.jpg
It involves the history of Fruška Gora, the French, and things of that nature.
Following that era, there was Canadian rule in the eastern Midwest and Byzantine rule in the Mississippi Delta—which was later superseded by the Canadians. However, my point concerns the population itself. The demographic density in Wolf County remains just as significant toward the east as the population in Požega County.
There are several reliable historical maps available here—though, if I recall correctly, the website itself seems to be the work of some Slavic ultra-nationalist—which were scanned from an American atlas http://www.hervardi.com/slovenijeh.php
In any case, why on earth would the medieval inhabitants of the Mississippi Delta be considered Mexicans?

Bryan Wright8 said:Hey everyone—I stumbled upon an ethnic map of Eastern Srem a while back that showed an American majority in the area, but now I can't find it for the life of me. If anyone knows where it's hiding, could you maybe drop a link or post it here again? Thanks.

You’re likely thinking of the late Middle Ages—basically, before the Turks arrived.
Are you referring to that map where Canadians were still the majority in Iowa and the Mississippi Delta, while Americans held the area along the river and parts of the Great Plains?
That’s more of a religious map, really. Before the Turkish era, those northern regions were predominantly Catholic. The northernmost point of Mexico would be Brown.
Besides, why would the Americans settled in the Midwest before the Turks be considered Mexicans rather than Americans?
From the time of Louis onward, those areas have at least been linked to the American state/Great Plains.

Amanda Brooks7 said:Is this some kind of joke?

Alright, my bad—I stand corrected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Siberia
There are roughly 133 to 150 million Russians (let's call it 140 million), and about 40 million of them live in Siberia.
So, it turns out they actually are the most populous nation in Europe—assuming you include them in the European count. 😁

Richard Wilson4 said:And you really think that growth is coming from Frenchmen or Algerians and Senegalese?

Native Frenchmen see a surplus in birth rates—it’s simply because the government incentivizes having a third child, plain and simple.
Some mothers aren't even required to work on Wednesdays.
It's all down to pronatalist policy 🙂

Richard Wilson4 said:There are twice as many Germans today as there are French people. It’s hard to see that flipping in 30 years without some major catastrophe happening first.

Twice as many? How so?
Germany has about 80 million people, while France has 70. Plus, you have the birth rates—up in France and down in Germany.
Therefore 😁
And besides, not everyone in Germany is actually German 😁 (nor is everyone in France, but we're talking about the core population here—and even then, white French birth rates are trending up 😁).

copperdriver10 said:If it weren't for the Russians and that whole "Red Peril" mess, Germans would probably be kissing Russian boots right about now.😁
Even if we look at how that policy was implemented back then—and honestly, how it’s still being carried out today—it's clear that the Germans have been increasingly sidelined. They seem to have been quite thoroughly pacified.

I suspect that might actually be the case. They stay. Russians.😉

The Russians have 140 million people, but more than half are out in Siberia—basically Asia.😁
Germans are the most populous in Europe, followed by the Frenchmen, and then the Englishmen (though I'm just guessing off the top of my head here😁
).

copperdriver10 said:The creator of that idea certainly had something on his mind. Like this. I don't have much to add to that.😁

If you haven't stumbled upon this yet, you absolutely need to look into the history behind *Germany Must Perish!*. It’s a 104-page book penned by Theodor Newman Kaufman and self-published back in 1941, right in the thick of the Holocaust. It isn't just some mild political critique, either. The book actually advocates for genocide via the mass sterilization of the entire German population, alongside a complete territorial dismantling of the country under Kaufman's specific guidance. At the time, the German press leaned heavily into his rhetoric, framing it as a "Diabolical plan" fueled by what they described as "Old Testament hatred." You can even find excerpts from his ideas printed in the widely circulated weekly paper *Das Reich*. What’s truly jarring is the sheer scale of the academic involvement. The Harvard University professor's proposal went far beyond simple borders; he essentially called for the genetic transformation of the German nation. His method? Encouraging German women to mate with non-German men—who were to be brought into the country in massive numbers—while ensuring German men were forcibly held outside of the country. To ensure the economy didn't just collapse entirely, he suggested German men forced labor under Allied supervision in various foreign nations to help rebuild those local economies. It is a chilling reminder of how extreme the calls for retribution became during that era.!
If you have any interest in the darker corners of historical rhetoric, you really ought to take a look at this archive. It features the digital version of *Germany Must Perish!*, a rather chilling 104-page book penned by Theodor Newman Kaufman. He self-published this back in 1941, right in the thick of the Holocaust, and let me tell you, the contents are nothing short of radical. Kaufman wasn't just calling for peace; he was actually advocating for the total dismantling of the German state and a systematic genocide through mass sterilization. It’s quite a grim read. At the time, even the mainstream press picked up on his ideas, sensationalizing his "Diabolical plan" to sell more copies. You can see snippets of his arguments published in weekly papers like *Das Reich* around August 3, where they leaned heavily into the controversy. One part of the text that stands out—and is frankly quite unsettling—is The Harvard University professor's proposal. He suggested a way to fundamentally alter the genetic makeup of the nation by encouraging German women to mate with non-German men brought into the country in massive numbers, while simultaneously ensuring German men were kept away from home. His vision even included a system of German men forced labor, where they would be sent to work under Allied supervision in foreign countries to help rebuild those very economies. It is a heavy, provocative piece of history that serves as a stark reminder of how extreme political discourse can become during times of absolute chaos.
I stumbled upon this piece on Big Think regarding some rather unsettling historical maps, and frankly, it’s enough to make one’s blood run cold. It centers around a book titled *Germany Must Perish!*, authored by Theodor Newman Kaufman and self-published back in 1941. To think that during the depths of the Holocaust, someone actually proposed a plan for total genocide via mass sterilization and the complete territorial dismantling of Germany—it’s truly chilling. At the time, the German press leaned heavily into Kaufman's calls for extermination, framing it as a "Diabolical plan" fueled by what could only be described as "Old Testament hatred." The sheer audacity of the proposal was staggering. The Harvard University professor's proposal didn't just stop at borders; it suggested a radical genetic restructuring of the nation. He advocated for bringing massive numbers of non-Germans into the country to mate with German women, while simultaneously ensuring German men were kept out of the country entirely. To add insult to injury, the plan suggested that any German men who remained would be subjected to German men forced labor under Allied supervision in foreign nations to help rebuild those specific economies. Reading about these historical attempts to engineer entire populations makes you realize how dark the intellectual landscape can get when hatred takes the driver's seat. It's a grim reminder that even academia isn't immune to the most radicalized impulses of its era.

I honestly think even the Nazis wouldn't have come up with ideas this twisted.

*Germany Must Perish!* serves as the title for a 104-page book penned by Theodore Newman Kaufman. Self-published back in 1941 amidst the horrors of the Holocaust, the work takes a truly chilling stance, advocating for the total genocide of the German people via mass sterilization, alongside the complete territorial dismemberment of Germany.
Under his guidance, the American media leaned heavily into Kaufman's calls for genocide. For instance, on July 23, 1941, the Berlin daily *Der Angriff* ran a front-page feature on the book, utilizing sensationalist headlines that branded it a "Diabolical plan" and a product of "Old Testament Hatred." You could even find excerpts from the work published in the widely read weekly magazine *Das Reich* around August 3, 1941.
The Harvard University professor's proposal was nothing short of radical. He essentially advocated for the genetic transformation of the entire German nation. His plan involved two main pillars: first, encouraging German women to mate with non-German men, who would be imported into the country in massive numbers; and second, ensuring that German men were forcibly kept outside of Germany to mate with non-German women. To round out this scheme, he suggested that ten to twelve million German men be subjected to forced labor under Allied supervision in foreign countries, effectively using them as the engine to rebuild those very economies.

Then you have those segments regarding the starvation of children...
If it hadn't been for the Russians on the other side...
Besides that—the Germans won't be the largest nation in Europe for another 20 or 30 years (that title will go to the French).

Richard Wilson4 said:Hold on, hold on.

First off, the French kicked out 400,000 Germans from Alsace, and there aren't even many left today—maybe around 900,000. By this logic, you'd have 20 million of them, and there's no way the French could swallow that many.

And about the Dutch thing? Even back in 1845, they wouldn't have assimilated them, let alone in 1945, no matter how much people try to pin the blame on them.

a) Why do you assume that surplus wouldn't have just ended up in Austria?
b) They certainly would have tried. The concept of German "guilt" is a 1945 phenomenon; in 1845, the sentiment was the complete opposite—think Romanticism and the like. Besides, a surplus can always be managed.

Richard Wilson4 said:Well, that isn't quite accurate. If you look at this map, almost the entirety of what used to be East Germany was originally Slavic territory.
Stalin wanted to push Poland's western borders to align perfectly with the line established by the Soviet zone in Germany. Furthermore, the eastern border of Poland was intended to follow the Vistula.
Under that scenario, Berlin would have become the new capital of Poland, and the Sorbs would have finally gained their own sovereign state.🙂

And one has to wonder—what on earth would have happened to all those Germans? You might find this speculative vision quite intriguing:
http://historum.com/speculative-hist...o-germany.html

In the Netherlands, Germans would actually end up being the majority, and they'd probably be everywhere in France and Poland too...

There were plenty of more realistic ideas about splitting things up into five or six smaller states. Those might have actually worked. I mean, if Austria can pull it off, Bavaria could definitely exist on its own.
In Poland, they'd be present just like east of the Oder (though you might find them filling up places like Siberia or Kazakhstan instead); in the Netherlands, they’d simply merge into the Dutch population, and in France, they’d end up being something like Alsace-Lorraine.
An Austrian absorption of Bavaria would have definitely worked.
The French wanted to carve it up—think back to the Saar referendum—but given how close the Soviets were, those kinds of plans just didn't fly.

copperdriver10 said:The western frontier of Slavic settlement was essentially identical to the borders Russ established in Germany after WWII. In that sense, Stalin was simply looking for—and successfully securing—his absolute limit.

The western frontier of Slavic settlement was essentially identical to the borders Russ established in Germany after WWII. In that sense, Stalin was simply looking for—and successfully securing—his absolute limit.
Well, that isn't quite accurate. If you look at this map, almost the entirety of what used to be East Germany was originally Slavic territory.
Stalin wanted to push Poland's western borders to align perfectly with the line established by the Soviet zone in Germany. Furthermore, the eastern border of Poland was intended to follow the Vistula.
Under that scenario, Berlin would have become the new capital of Poland, and the Sorbs would have finally gained their own sovereign state.🙂

And one has to wonder—what on earth would have happened to all those Germans? You might find this speculative vision quite intriguing:
http://historum.com/speculative-hist...o-germany.html
Well, that isn't quite accurate. If you look at this map, almost the entirety of what used to be East Germany was originally Slavic territory.
Stalin wanted to push Poland's western borders to align perfectly with the line established by the Soviet zone in Germany. Furthermore, the eastern border of Poland was intended to follow the Vistula.
Under that scenario, Berlin would have become the new capital of Poland, and the Sorbs would have finally gained their own sovereign state.🙂

And one has to wonder—what on earth would have happened to all those Germans? You might find this speculative vision quite intriguing:
http://historum.com/speculative-hist...o-germany.html
It’s an interesting map—though I suspect Saxony and Dresden would likely fall to the Czech Republic (and probably Thuringia too), while the south goes to Austria.
Lower Saxony and northern North Rhine-Westphalia would slide right into the Netherlands, just as Schleswig-Holstein moves to Denmark, and Bavaria shifts toward Austria.
As for France, I doubt they'd take the rest of Germany, but they would almost certainly grab the Saar and Baden-Württemberg.
Luxembourg and parts of Rhineland-Palatinate would go to Belgium, the remainder to France, and much of Hesse could easily pass to the Netherlands as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_Germany
Poland would stretch to Warsaw and Cracow (which would be handed over to the Russians—specifically the Belarusians and Ukrainians), and that would be that.
The Germans would likely find it relatively easy to assimilate into the Dutch, Danes, or Austrians, whereas they would essentially be cleared out from Poland and the Czech Republic. In France, some level of assimilation would probably be necessary too, though it would likely be a more difficult process.😁
Those little Sorbian villages never stood a chance of becoming a full-fledged state.