This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternate History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Alternate HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Alternate HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Alternate HistoryAlternate History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Allies victory is the first thesis, Axis victory is another. I think both of them might to stay separate and autonomous. Popularity seems to be equal, there`re a lot of content for each for the article expanding. Any more problems? Nickpo (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are getting at, when did the allied victory become an issue? You didn't address the fact that there are sources that say WWII pods in general are just as popular as Axis win or the fact there are a large number of non-Axis win works of fiction set in World War II. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Starship Troopers (1997) - Though not stated outright in the film itself, Verhoeven has stated that it is set in a Universe where the Nazis won World War II and conquered the world. [citation needed]
As it is uncited and is making a specific claim, it shouldn't remain as is. However, this film does actually belong as an example as there is a huge body of scholarly work dealing with the Nazi/fascistic elements in the film--whether these elements are overt, satirical, faithful to the book, misreading the book, etc. is the gist of the debate. I don't have time to work on it at this time but I thought I'd leave it here as something to be worked on. freshacconci talktalk15:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Boundaries of the planned "Greater Germanic Reich" based on various, only partially systematised target projections (e.g. Generalplan Ost) from state administration and the SS leadership sources.[1]
I'm not entirely sure that this would be the right article for such information, since this article is about fiction. However, feel free to provide your reliable sources and maybe we can figure out what to do with them. -- Fyrefly (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A more plausible Axis victory, one that has yet to be created, involves the Good Guys and Bad Guys largely inverted with groups like the KKK ruling America, the BUF ruling Britain, and Vichy leaders in the real world ruling France while Germany maintains democracy and Japan becomes fully democratic. It's impossible to redeem Stalin, but keeping him on the side of an evil Britain and an evil America in an alternative universe gives some parallels. India breaks from Britain as the BUF overthrows the Windsor monarchy (a parallel is to Brazil splitting from Portugal).
The difference? Germany has the Jews on its side, and hence better technology that includes V-weapons that can be launched from submarines at the oil refineries of Houston and the tank factories of Detroit. Do you want the visionary super weapons? Keep the Jews on good terms with Germany and its allies (including eventually Churchill and De Gaulle), and Germany gets jet fighters that cause coastal defenses of the KKK-dominated USA to wither.
The Nazi and Japanese Evil Empires lost the war because of their mistreatment of innocent people. Without that mistreatment the Germans conquer the Soviet Union, and the Japanese are able to pacify Australia and New Zealand (they get the role of Italy) quickly by ensuring that the conquered people have no cause to resist. The Soviet Union, convinced that India is ripe for the taking, gets mauled badly there, and loses the resources of troops and materiel necessary for defeating Germany in Europe and Japan in eastern Asia.
This article title is absurd and has been put on an article about the Greater Germanic Reich as if this is a fact. This article is wasted space, either put it into something on alternative history fictions or delete it.--R-41 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well, when Piotrus asked my opinion about what to do with the article, I'm the one who suggest this particular merge, so I think I agree with the solution.... DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the term can have a broader meaning than just with respect to recent fiction. There are some historical examples of the term in the treaties after the thirty years war. --Alex1011 (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence, "...but the Nazi/Japanese Cold War has also resulted in an accelerated nuclear arms race relative to our own world," is incorrect, as only the Germans had invented nuclear weapons at the time of the novel, and where a pre-emptive strike on Japan would have not been retaliated against. Freakdog (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have exchanged the world map which shows the background situation from "The Man in the High Castle" by using the map which is now shown in the article about this novel. Gernsback67 (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Hypothetical Axis victory in World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The title says "Hypothetical Axis Victory in World War II" but instead of showing potential territorial changes, it has a list of Alt-history books. I propose changing the entire article to make it more informative about the ACTUAL possible outcomes of an Axis Victory. (Note:if no one is willing to enact my proposals within 1 Month, then I shall do so myself.)reDemocraticSocialism (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rare subject, not being based on any factual events, the books about this can't be evaluated on the usual criteria of Wikipedia. It gives a list of books, most of which have not earned it's own page which then would be subject to the norms of this website. The introduction is fine and I approve of having this article as it is Arodb (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Went the Day Well is not about an Axis victory but about the effect of a German invasion on a small English town. The German attackers (an Otto Skorzeny type commando unit in British uniforms) are stopped and in the epilogue it is clear that the invasion was defeated and the British had won the war. I suggest deleting that reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcalabrese (talk • contribs) 18:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the fatherland map, is incorrect as the greater germanic reich is not included, also this map shows a partial nazi victory not a axis total victory as this article is about, replacing with irl map ie none of available maps are accurate, this article is about an axis victory, in the lead it says "Axis powers of Germany, Italy, and JAPAN won World War II." also in the fatherland map japan LOST THE WAR also it is inaccurate as it does not include the greater germanic reich, where is the Pax Japonica in the fatherland map that is the reliably sourced lede? please no original research which also contradicts this article Gooduserdude (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? I explained, also here and in the edits logs, there is nothing "disruptive", just stop this and a little bit analize our policies (I saw you quarrel with another user at the Greater Germanic Reich, where you had similar problems). The policy is if you perform a change and it has no consensus, then the status quo ante version is restored by WP:BRD.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I removed this section as it is unsourced. The text is below:
A German victory in World War II would have been very difficult because of the superiority of Allied technology and logistics. Britain, Russia, and the United States outproduced Germany by a significant amount in resources and equipment while at the same time having far larger economic power. The cancellation of the German invasion of Russia would likely not have changed the result of the war, because Russia would likely have eventually broken the non-aggression pact that it signed with Germany and the end result would be Germany's surrender. Japan would likely have had significantly more success if it did not attack Pearl Harbor, but would probably lose control of China in 1950 at latest due to the rise of communism, and the rest of its empire would subsequently collapse.
This may or may not be accurate, but it is certainly speculation. As it's speculation, I'm not sure how we could source it for inclusion. Perhaps some of it, such as the fact that the Allies economies vastly outmatched the Axis, could be sourced, but that Japan would 'probably lose control of China in 1950 at latest' seems entirely speculative. --Shimbo (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's speculative fiction. Personalities matter, and those are the stars of any alternative history as in the history books that we all know. It would be absurd to make Churchill a Nazi collaborator or make a nice guy out of Stalin. Would Mao Zedong have abandoned his revolutionary fervor simply because the Nationalist regime had been obliterated? Not likely. Would the Japanese have killed him and destroyed his revolutionary force? Not likely. Mao knew how to retreat and hide, awaiting a better time. Would remnants of the Nationalist cause and refugees from brutality have found common cause with Mao's Communist revolution that has become quite likely the last possible chance for an independent China? I would expect so. Yes, I would expect Mao to take over China in the 1950's -- later than in the reality that we know because the Japanese are more efficient soldiers than the Chinese Nationalists, but not that much more efficient.Pbrower2a (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right, maybe you aren't, but it's irrelevant, because official policy is that Wikipedia is not for discussion and speculation about stuff. See WP:NOTFORUM. If you want to talk about alternative history then the best thing to do would be to head over to https://alternatehistory.com --Shimbo (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the article is entitled Hypothetical Axis victory in World War II; which means at least a rehearsal of the major arguments in speculation about history are completely in order.
Yes, a summary of the major arguments about a hypothetical Axis victory in World War II would be a useful addition to this article, IF those arguments are sourced to reliable sources (see WP:RS). It's against Wikipedia policy to add our personal opinions to any article, including this one (see WP:NOR). --Shimbo (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed one map, as reproduced here, supposed to describe the geopolitical world of The Man in the High Castle. It is minutely more precise than what the book actually contains and is almost entirely speculative. I replaced it by the only map available in Commons which is not involving original research: a map of the territory of the United States as it is described in the book.--Sapphorain (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the same thing cannot be said about the US map, which pictures the situation actually described in The Man in the High Castle: the Pacific States of America controlled by Japan, the United States of America and « the South », both controlled by Nazi Germany, and the politically neutral Rocky Mountain States. On the other hand the world map you insist in replacing it with is a minutely precise original research made by a contributor of Wikimedia Commons, which invokes Dick’s book but in which practically everything is pure speculation and actually not contained in the book (for instance Antartica is not even mentioned in it!). Original research by a contributor not backed by any admissible source is not allowed in Wikipedia. --Sapphorain (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the world map is original research, but it seems to me that the Noth America map is original research too. Yes the book describes the USA as split in four, but, for example, the map shows Texas as part of the Rocky Mountain States which IIRC has no support in the text. Any specific boundaries are inevitably original research as there is no map in the novel and no precise description of the borders. I'd suggest the article might be better either with a map from a different major Nazi-victory novel ('Fatherland' perhaps, as that has a map) or we simply don't include a map. Perhaps a suitable photograph could illustrate the article instead. --Shimbo (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The four countries indicated in the US map correspond at least to Dick’s book, and their approximate locations are correct. Yes, I agree that their borders cannot be viewed as being in complete conformity with the book, since no precise description of them is given there. A warning to that effect could be put under the map, though. Whereas such a warning under the world map would be senseless, as the great majority of borders (and even states) indicated in it are pure invention. On the other hand, the option of borrowing instead a map from another novel providing one is not feasible, as there is certainly a copyright on such a map.--Sapphorain (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand your rationale here. The world map is original research, but the US one isn't because the world map has more original research on it than the US one? Either original research is allowed or it isn't, surely? If there is no copyright free map available depicting any Axis victory novel, we could include one of the maps from articles such as New Order (Nazism), Lebensraum and Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. And there remains the option of having no map at all. --Shimbo (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as we agree that the 'Man in the High Castle' maps are original research, I suggest we replace them with this sourced one:Boundaries of the planned "Greater Germanic Reich" after an Axis victory in WW2.[1]
I have restored the broken link, if the man in the high castle maps are WP:OR this map from the wikipedia article New Order (Nazism) is not which is better than the greater germanic reich map since this article is about an axis victory not a german victory only
I don't agree. This map from New Order (Nazism) is in fact imported from Wikidata, where it is unsourced, and where it is labelled "own work" by the contributor who put it there. The fact that it is already used in another wikipedia article doesn't make it less WP:OR. So I removed it. As I already said, I would agree with the file "Greater Germany Reich" if the broken link is restored (it appears to be still broken). --Sapphorain (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
??? There is certainly a consensus in the talk above that the old map you restored is original research and should not be in the article. Whether it should be replaced or not by another one, and by which one, has stilt to reach a consensus apparently. So for the time being let's leave the article without any map. --Sapphorain (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Though there is a weak consensus to keep the a map derived from The Man in the High Castle, it has been pointed out in this discussion and on the map's Commons entry that the map is an interpretation from the text of that novel, and was not approved by the author of the novel. While it is the least problematic of the maps, there is consensus that it is still original research. As such, there is therefore consensus against including that map. There is no consensus for including any of the other proposed maps, due to concerns over original research.
Objections arose after the removal of the map per WP:OR. Several maps were also proposed, as well as no map at all. Two questions: (1) Is original research tolerable in this context? (2) Which map, if any, would be appropriate?--Sapphorain (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that all the maps based on novels are problematic as far as OR is concerned. Maps based on genuine Axis plans would be good, but we seem to have a problem sourcing them ATM. The only one I think might work is this one: Otherwise, IMO that leaves the options of having nothing or using a photograph instead of a map. Here are a few possible photos from Wikimedia Commons:
I believe the world map of The Man in the High Castle should stay, while it does have its flaws, its probably a good representation of the world of the novel, but in case most editors decide to scrap it, I propose the Fatherland one, even though it is a novel in which only Germany won:
I also believe the world map of The Man in the High Castle should stay, the fatherland map does not show the greater germanic reich which makes the map incorrect and it does only shows a german victory not a axis victory which the The Man in the High Castle does (we should definitely NOT use the fatherland map in any case whatsover) Gooduserdude (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that a Wikimedia Commons file is acceptable on Wikipedia only if it is referenced by sources that are admissible by Wikipedia standards. This means for instance that a draft or picture based on the content of a novel should not be used unless it was actually published within the novel (or possibly by some admissible media or publication). It also means that « own works » that are interpretations of the contents of such novels, drafted by lambda Wikimedia contributors, should not be allowed per No original research. Thus in my opinion none of [1],[2], [3], and [4] is acceptable. For the time being I would be content with no illustration at all in the lead, But if a consensus can be reached I would agree with one of the following propositions by User: Shimbo:[5] (this one has my preference), [6] , [7], and possibly [8] (provided the broken link on the reference can be fixed).--Sapphorain (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The question asked doesn’t appear quite appropriate to me. More precisely, an agreement has yet to be reached on whether a map or other image should be placed on the article lead at all, and if so, which one it should be. Moreover, there has recently been an RfC on this matter (just above), after which the conclusion was « …there is therefore consensus against including that map » (« that map » being precisely the number 1. map proposed once again now), due to the fact that « the map is an interpretation from the text of that novel, and was not approved by the author of the novel », and that there is thus concerns over original research. Because of the same concerns it was also concluded that there was no consensus for including any of the other maps proposed, and that excludes 2. and 3. of the present proposition.
After this I think such an informal « Proposals for leads », pretending to ignore previous consensus, is inappropriate and will lead nowhere. If someone thinks there should be further discussion on that matter, that contributor should do things more formally, and either extend the original RfC, or create a new one.--Sapphorain (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There was a lot discussed in this RfC, that went beyond what was initially proposed. First of all, there is clear consensus against having a map based on a fictional novel in the lede, this is due mainly to WP:OR reasons, with some editors also mentioning there is no reason to prefer one novel's interpretation of the subject over another. Concerning the other proposed pictures, of Nazi plans in case they won the war, there appears to be no consensus for pictures 4 and 5.
During this RfC, it was raised that the article itself, as it stands, is a possible violation of WP:OR, though most participants agreed that the topic (works of fiction about the Nazis winning WWII) is definitely notable. An editor suggested the article be renamed to a more proper title, which would help focus writing on the topic, with several others agreeing with them. As such, there is consensus among editors that the article should be renamed, and I'd recommend a move request is open, with possible titles, such as World War II Axis victories in fiction, listed as options. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈17:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recently there was controversy over what map or other image, if any, should be placed in the article's lead, eventually an RfC was held, with the conclusion that there was consensus against the proposed maps due to concerns over original research, but given that the only users who took part in it were ones who were already involved in the dispute, I thought it was appropriate to at least have further discussion on this issue.
I made some proposals which were already mentioned above:
They're all OR, as is this entire article. We should not have an article on this, but articles on specific works like Fatherland and The Man in the High Castle. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with 1. I think the maps are more meaningful than the pictures of models of proposed buildings, and The Man in the High Castle is the one fictional work most people are familiar with, so its most meaningful. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As already mentioned several times, propositions 1, 2 and 3 are not acceptable, as they are original research devised by lambda contributors. Propositions 4 and 5 could be acceptable (they are not original research), but not necessarily appropriate. My preference is no image at all, and then possibly number 5.--Sapphorain (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, Map Option 3 is okay as it is identical, AFAIK, to the map included in the novel, so it's not original research. I agree that any map based on interpretation of the text of a novel (e.g. Option 1 and 2) is original research and so a non-starter.
Some people have objected to Map Option 3 as it's a map of German rather than Axis victory, but I don't find that a convincing objection, personally. Shimbo (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments on the original research question, I personally think that unofficial maps of novels are acceptable, as long as they are accurate to the novels they are supposed to depict, I also do think that some minor inaccuracies can be tolerated. With that being said, my preference is number 1, The Man in the High Castle is one of the earliest and most well-known Axis victory depictions, and it is also genre-defining, so for this reason I think it should be the one on lead. -- 2804:248:f6cb:2100:d584:4439:5776:ffaa (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, it's not a matter of opinion. No one has any problem with people drawing maps based on their favourite novels. I've done it myself.
BUT one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that original research is simply not allowed. This policy can't be overridden by an RfC.
Unless we can somehow argue that a map isn't original research (as I argue Option 3 isn't, as it's a recreation of the map in the novel) then it cannot be included.
I don't see the slightest hope of Option 1 being acceptable, as not only are the parts mentioned in the text of the novel original research but much of it is entirely made up, with no support from the text of the novel. Shimbo (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, as long as "accurate" means that everything represented in it can be actually confirmed by the text in the novel. It is not the case, by very far, of Option 1.--Sapphorain (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The general topic of this article appears to be notable enough. Besides novels, other pieces of literature have also discussed ways with which the Axis might have won, or at least not been defeated. There is no single definitive scenario, however, nor any particularly plausible fictional depiction. A map to that end may be difficult to justify. Senorangel (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we do need to stop and reconsider what this article is supposed to cover first, and possibly rename it. A valid article on something roughly parallel to this topic might be possible, but a more appropriate title and topic would be something like "World War II Axis victories in fiction" or the like, which is what almost all the content deals with anyway. With that as the title, none of these images would be quite right - we would be better off showing something that clearly represents the idea of an Axis victory in fiction (ie. a cover or movie poster or promotional image or the like from some prominent well-known piece of fiction about an Axis victory.) I don't think a map is good, except maybe something like this that is directly from a particular work of fiction - we want something that captures the fiction aspect. Ideally something that captures the idea that this is an enduring point of fascination for writers. This also avoids the OR aspect - there is plenty of secondary coverage about the fact that this is a major point of fascination in fiction, as well as discussion on what it means that we could go into more depth on. Just search Google Scholar for any two prominent pieces of fiction on the topic and you'll come up with a pile of possible sources - eg. [9][10][11]. (And there's some already in the article, though I think it could be improved - and probably should be if we're renaming it to focus on that more directly.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No to 1,2,3. There's a lot of general leeway for reproduction WP maps and many data visualizations but that means a lot of good judgement has to be exercised. What is the reader supposed to take away from this visualization? (And, what should they not take away?) IMO an alternate history map, and much of alternate history fiction in general, first and foremost makes an emotional impact, best characterized in the TV capture Aquillion links above, which with one glance gets the point across. Contrast to #1: arguably the idea of a different world order is conveyed, but to know who's whom you have to zoom in and read the key ... which has 20 factions, and now it's just become a fandom wikia. #2 at a quick glance looks like it could be a Cold War map. #3 sort of shows a hegemony, but has tiny text everywhere that requires a zoom. The notion of a clear concise lead image is reflected in MOS:LEADIMAGE (and while shock is discouraged, there's nothing wrong with some pathos). I hope all this text will be more helpful than cluttering. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the fact that only germany won ww2 and not the axis as whole is not the main problem with the fatherland maps, the main problem is that it does not include the Greater Germanic Reich but a fantasy map of a greater germany with lebensraum without the other germanic countries being included which makes the maps historically incorrect Gooduserdude (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not have any of these. Any choice in lead would be to favor one of the hypothetical worlds over all others, and all the choices seem to have additional issues. Two issues in particular are that the images are not canonical (i.e. just some fan variant) and not good in appearance. For example, The Man in the High Castle had Axis conquering Africa which is not shown here, and the book simply does not mention many areas that are shown. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, #1 is imaginary - it simply does not match the book nor the show, it is just someone playing around making up names for things and drawing borders whimsically. The book is describing events and feelings of the principals, it only mentions territories occasionally and not all territories of the world nor detailing all these border lines. But it clearly says that (p24) Germany has done a Holocaust in Africa and did Project Farmland of the whole Mediterranean, and that Italy (p87) winds up with a little empire in the Middle East -- and the imaginary map simply does not match there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except the map does show the draining of the Mediterrranean, and it also does show Italy controlling some countries in the Middle East, as well as the Axis controlling Africa, and I don't see why it is necessary for the map to show what the Germans and the Japanese are doing in the territories they control, if that is even possible. -- 2804:248:FB81:8500:490D:8D84:AAAF:B0F3 (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That filled in area and all of Africa is supposed to be entirely entirely German -- this map instead shows the Med and Africa as mostly Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Others. Really, just not a valid portrayal of even the limited disclosures in the book, and a great amount of more detail just made up. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the Amazon show Italy is not shown in their map (here), and in the book at p87, Italy is said to wind up with a tiny empire in the middle east. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Aquillion. The article as it currently is feels unfocused to me. We really could use a move, and only after that will the question about what the page image should be be answerable. Loki (talk)
The maps presented are certainly not appropriate for this article. What will be decided is greatly influenced by the suggestion to rename and refocus the article to being about fictional victories, which I support. The article now might work with the NSDAP plaque. If the article changes, it might be good to put a book cover. Since the chosen image is a result of the content (MOS:IRELEV), the article's purpose should be decided before a decision on the image is made. If no proposed image is agreed upon ('no consensus'), then there shouldn't be an image. As for my opinion, the article's topic and title is rather vague, and an accompanying image won't elevate it. imo this discussion should be closed as no-con, and a move discussion should be started instead. SWinxy (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also broadly support Aquillion's proposal. Right now, this article just feels like a laundry list of works which have used this as a motif, with very little to put together a cohesive discussion of the actual topic—fictional depictions of an Axis WWII victory. I do not believe a fictional map should be the lead image, though some might be useful in a later discussion of how works differ in how a post-WWII world with the Axis as the victors would look. Rather, I think the lead image should be one of the images reflecting the Nazis' actual plans (or at least aspirations) had they won the war; the "rebuilt Berlin" planning image is a good example there. But I think the article's focus needs to be improved before we can start talking about what image is best to represent it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me11:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not have any of these. Again, since a repeat call was given: the random fanboy art is simply not the same map as in the Man in the High Castle TV show, and does not match the partial info of the book. It would be bad to elevate private fantasia, or to show any of these as representative of all speculations of axis victory. More colourful perhaps, but inappropriate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Man_in_the_High_Castle_Plausible_World_Map.png){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Man_in_the_High_Castle_novel_map_of_former_USA.png){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Planned_partition_of_Asia.png){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nazi_map_of_South_America.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warning_-_American_WWII_propaganda_poster.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hitler,_Speer_y_Breker_en_Par%C3%ADs,_23_de_junio_de_1940.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_Germanic_Reich.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
The redirect Axis victory in world war ii has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 3 § Axis victory in world war ii until a consensus is reached. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)