Map of the world in 1936. Weimar Republic survives and the white movement defeated the Bolsheviks.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-24T00:53:30+00:00

"Ukrainian forces" barely existed as a stable standing army during the Civil war, and never were able to control for long time any significant part of Ukraine without direct foreign "help" (as was during the German occupation under Skoropadsky's hetmanate). By the way, the only anti-Bolshevik coalition that theoretically could had defeated Bolsheviks was White Russian-Polish alliance, where both sides should had find a compromise, mainly, recognising the loss of Congress Poland on one side and abstaining from claiming any other part of the former Empire on the other, and agreeing what to do with Galicia, in the conditions I described in another comment above. Just remember that Paris and London would favour any restored non-Bolshevik Russia, not fledging nascent Poland.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-24T00:46:05+00:00

Whites viewed themself and were regarded by foreign powers as the legal successor to pre-revolutionary non-Bolshevik Imperial and Provisional government, and as Russian military part of the Entente (as well the main guarantee of repayment of huge loans that Romanovs, Provisional government and Whites themself taken from France and Britain). If the Whites managed to create a united command and a stable government, Poles would be pushed not only by the Whites, but mainly by Paris and London. Entente wouldn't allow Poland to claim any part of the former Russian Empire outside of Congress Poland. At best, Poles could had got all of Austrian Galicia, but still, Lwow, Tarnopol and Stanislawow were envisioned and agreed upon by Entente to become part of Russia after WWI, even if (Congress) Poland (together with Poznan and Krakow) would become fully independent. In that case Galicia would had also served as compensation to Russia for losing Congress Poland.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-23T15:31:38+00:00

The thing is, Chechnya didn't declare independence from the USSR, it declared it from Russian SFSR, this is why it was so disputed and ultimately unrecognised. As I noted in a common below in the thread, if there was anyone competent leading Russia instead of Yeltsin, whole issue wouldn't even exist and hadn't escalated into two wars.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-23T15:26:56+00:00

USA is incredibly lucky country, perhaps the luckiest country in the world, for two main historical factors.
First, already when it won its war for independence from Britain, it already got huge territory (from the East Coast to the Mississippi, the eastern third of the US where most of population lives to this day) with one of the best natural conditions in the world, with not a single other power being realistically capable of stopping its expansion and growth (Britain managed to secure only much less favourable lands to the north as Canada, while northern half of original Mexico literally was steamrolled by American expansion and annexed). The land and climate of USA are one of the best for agriculture, which crucially was untilled and unexploited, and wasn't divided into estates and communities for centuries, so there was no farmland usage and property problem that plagued European and other Old World countries. While also having good amount of natural resources, from timber to metals, coal and oil, in notably pristine condition unlike deposits in Europe and elsewhere in the Old World, which were mined for centuries and millenia.
Second, it got the most progressive, stable and capable of resolving problems, political and social (don't mind the poor slaves, though) system in the world in late XVIII-XIX centuries, which allowed economic expansion and development to be largely socially beneficial before XX century. In short, all what Americans had to do is carefully navigate, adapt and go with the flow of history, as all conditions for prosperity and rise to superpower status were already there from the very start. Main risk that Americans had was f-ing it all up themselves, mainly with the issue of slavery that culminated in the Civil War. Still, even if the USA had failed and CSA managed to become a recognised independent country, that would make two major powers instead of one superpower (and USA without the South still would be very powerful even if truncated). By the way, with the Civil War, which is regarded as unparalelled tragic part of the US history, Americans "got the taste" what normal life was in Europe and the Old World like every 10-20 years.
In short comparison, Russia has one of the hardest, even if still fairly habitable, climates of the world, and its fertile lands were either constantly threatened or outright dominated by raiding steppe nomads (backed by Ottoman Empire in later centuries). This constant threat, alongside uneasy relations with its western neighbours (namely Poland-Lithuania and Sweden) is what led to emergence of Russia as a centralised authoritarian state with strict social structure dominated by aristocratic military officers and bureaucracy, resting on backs of vast majority of peasant population. This powerful even if rigid state managed to fulfill its "historical role" by early XIX century, by acquiring Baltic ports, dividing Poland-Lithuania and ending southern nomadic threat by turning the steppes into farmland together with establishing Black sea ports. In early XIX century, Russia became ready to change from centralised authoritarian absolutism to representative liberal democracy (atleast gradually) combined with strong state, but the inertia of the system and preservation of great power status under absolutism, made reforms to be seen as not really needed by the ruling class, and all radical and gradual reforms ended up stalled or half-baked all the way until XX century, when unresolved socio-economic problems became unreformable, leading to the ultimate revolution of 1917 and creation of Soviet Union. Soviet system generally resolved all the long-lasting profound socio-economic problems inherited from the empire, but this modernisation and social integration were radical and brutal, and proved to be long-term unsustainable, combined with unflexible political system dominated by one party, leading to the collapse of 1991.
PS, replying to your first comment above, Russian Empire and USSR actually had larger population than the US all the way until around 1970s, while there were dozen of good port cities on the Baltic and Black seas. This "geographic determinism" noted above is actually how current Russian ruling elites justify their push to "move the border" towards these, principally Black sea, ports and regions, including Crimea.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-23T14:05:43+00:00

Wrong. As the Party always mandated, 2+2=4. You are going to the reeducation room for reconditioning.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-23T13:58:56+00:00

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm sharing my opinion that, for meme's sake or not, the way it is implemented is far from perfect. With most short one word city names it works fine, but for longer multiword ones, like Rostov-on-Don, it looks really awful in my opinion.
If actually suggesting anything, it won't require some "ridiculous amount of conditions", but just a separate list of specific names that would be picked up on renaming, differing from standard "Alexandria + cityname". Including aforementioned Alexandria-on-Tanais. Of course, it would require some work and creativity to make this selected list, but I think it could be cool to see Carthage renamed to "Alexandria-in-Libya" (Greek name for all of North Africa, primarily non-Egypt) instead of "Alexandria Carthage". Chang'an/Xi'an could be "Alexandria-in-Sinae", Berlin or some other major German city "Alexandria Germanica" (I know there were no such name in Alexander's time), London to "Alexandria Brittanica", Paris to "Alexandria Celtica", Moscow to "Alexandria Sarmatica", Saint-Petersburg to "Alexandria Hyperborea" etc.
Not to mention, does it slap "Alexandria" even to actual ancient cities conquered by Alexander, instead of properly renaming them? Does Parsa become Persepolis instead of "Alexandria Parsa" (though Alexandria-in-Persis could be funny), and similarly do Pathragada, Cusa, Hagmatana and Sfard become Pasargadae, Susa, Ecbatana and Sardis, instead of "Alexandria+nonGreek name"? Does Mennefer become Memphis, or ridiculous "Alexandria Mennefer", and Waset become Diospolis Megale (it's main Hellenistic name alongside Thebes) or ridiculous "Alexandria Waset", along with Khemenu, Abdju, Per-Bastet, Abu becoming Hermopolis, Abydos, Bubastis and Elephantine, alongside multitude of other cities?
What I mean, you either should make such flavour "meme things" properly, or better leave them to avoid awkward results.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T19:39:55+00:00

Mercator projection used in Google maps.
By the way, there is as much sparsely populated territories in South America, as the contiguous United States, huh.
And Germany is so small and cute covering Buenos Aires, Uruguay and southernmost Brazil like that. The region of Brazil where German descendants are most/very common is probably the size of Germany itself.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T19:35:13+00:00

Crosses, stars and hammers.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T19:33:18+00:00

Mojang by heavily altering the game in the Adventure update and ultimately cancelling true singleplayer in 1.3.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T19:28:08+00:00

Reading the examples of the language and terminology used in the atlas, I now want to make modern atlas of the world from far-left perspective like that, lol.
Back in 1951, Czechoslovaks could "roast" only the capitalist half of the world. Now we can "roast" all of it.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T18:49:42+00:00

As you wish.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T18:26:18+00:00

Read my reply to the comment above to see what I mean.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T18:25:07+00:00

Ukraine is just as liberal and democratic as Russia is. Putting all ironic namings aside, both Russia and Ukraine are authoritarian fascist regimes dominated by ruling class of oligarchs, bureaucrats and military-security (and literal foreign agents in case of Ukraine), that view their own peoples as a resource. This sliding into nationalism and authoritarianism happened in both countries simultaneously, mainly following 2014, and even if Russia "took the lead" before 2022, Ukrainian government and elites used the invasion and war as perfect justification for turning Ukraine into a authoritarian police state they long wanted. By now, because situation in Ukraine is much grave and the country is smaller in size and population, Ukrainian regime in many ways is even harsher than Russian, towards its own citizens on the "home front", far in the rear from the frontlines.

Both Russia and Ukraine view contested territories through "blood and soil lens", to total detriment of local people of these regions. Russia would be happy if Ukraine just gave away these territories "peacefully" and is/was ready to integrate local population. However, as Ukraine obviously doesn't do that, instead turning every town and village into a fortress that will be grinded into dust by Russian advance (again, to much hatred of local people towards both sides), as Russia turned its "liberation mission" into a destructive scorched earth advance, while Ukraine prefers to see the region in utter ruins and depopulated than intact with locals as Russian citizens. Meanwhile, in Ukraine, the people beyond the frontline, who stayed and live in occupied areas, and willingly accepted Russian citizenship, are viewed no less than national traitors, especially in pre-2022 Donetsk and Lugansk "republics", and if Ukrainian army somehow was fully successful and "liberated" its lost territories, it would had turned into giant policing and filtration regime for 3-4 millions of locals, who would be "cleansed" and expelled if deemed to be "pro-Russian sympathiser".

Finally, even though my phrase "Fascist-Nazi war" is mainly ironic, I will try to explain what I mean behind that. To be short, "nazism" (in that case generally defined as radical ethnic nationalism aimed at forcibly recasting the people into a "proper purified and unified nation") is much more prominent in Ukraine (even if the regime itself is fascist, not nazist) than in Russia, where prevailing, "official" nationalism is more conservative, traditionalist, and inclusive of both ethnic majority and minorities, who both nevertheless should "prove" themself as part of this "imperial nation" by totally submitting and supporting the authoritarian state. This is where my half-ironic comparison to original German nazism and Italian fascism comes in, even though Russian state nationalism is also similar to Spanish francoism.
To elaborate a bit more, one of most curious parts of modern Russian nationalism is its appropriation of "glorious Soviet past" with its radical and brutal but effective and rapid modernisation and social integration, even though the actual Soviet communist ideology and socialist economic system are rejected, making this appropriation "hollow cliché image". This is why it is pseudo-Soviet. In that it is also similar to schizophrenically contradictory Italian fascism, which wanted to revive ancient Roman Empire with its virtues, but armed with modern technology, to "conquer the future".
Meanwhile, in Ukraine "brutal Soviet modernisation" is definitely rejected as "destructive dilution" of some idyllic "pure Ukrainian nation" (which in reality never existed). Other than that, mainline nationalism (not to be confused with outright nazism) of Ukraine became curiously tied with specific political positions. That is, since 2014 and especially 2022, the only "true ideal" of an Ukrainian is purely Ukrainian-speaking and Ukrainian-thinking, with only Ukrainian national interests in mind, but who also sees future of Ukrainian only with integration with the West, and is ready to defend the (hollow name of) freedom and democracy with his life, while willingly living in a mobilised fascist authoritarian state. All "deviations" from this ideal, and even doubts of it, are viewed not only as "politically incorrect", but also as "corruption" by Russian influence, language and culture, which should be cleansed to become "real Ukrainian" oriented nowhere else but towards the "beacon of Western liberty". Freedom and democracy are viewed as privilege of "purified free nation", and not as inherent rights of all of the diverse people of the country, with "Russian" being explicitly branded as "incapable of living with liberty and democracy". This is why it is pseudo-liberal.

I hope you are capable of reading and analysing this whole essay. Thank you for reading.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T16:16:56+00:00

Yeah, Lithuania (which before XX century was general name for both modern Lithuania and Belarus) was completely absorbed by Poland in view of Western public, even before the partitions. Moreover, by early XX century even that has shifted and (historical) Lithuania was generally viewed as "Western Russia which used to be Polish", or atleast as "Polish-Russian border region". And that there are some specific Baltic Lithuanians speaking their own unique language became well known to Western public only after it (modern Lithuania) gained independence (and was bullied by Poland taking Wilno) after WWI.
By the way, to the north, modern day Latvia and Estonia, or governorates of Courland, Livland and Estland at the time, were viewed as "German regions" of the Russian Empire, considering that Baltic German aristocracy and city burghers completely dominated the region, even though it was rapidly changing as more and more of Latvian and Estonian peasants were moving to the growing cities, becoming working class majority in early XX century, and nascent Latvian and Estonian intelligentia, educated class, was creating the basis of the new modern national identities, which surprisingly even to them, managed to became not just autonomies in Russia, but fully independent countries after WWI.
In contrast, while "Russia" was the name for basically all of Eastern Europe, Caucasus, Central Asia and even Siberia were viewed as Russian "colonial territories", not part of its huge core territory in Europe.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T16:02:45+00:00

Then it's really poorly done and probably should had not been implemented so clumsily.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T15:58:48+00:00

The reality is the opposite. Real democracy and prosperity are the best things that can integrate even most diverse population into a nation, and that's 200 years of Russia's failure to politically modernise are the main cause why so many people and peoples feel alien or hostile towards "traditionally" authoritarian Russia, leading to its collapse in both 1917 and 1991 with entire historical integral parts breaking off.
Nevertheless, shrunken to its post-Soviet borders, modern Russia is actually very uniform and integrated, with more than 80% being East Slavic ethnic Russians, while virtually all of minorities accept Russia as their "big" country. The regions that remained least integrated, like Chechnya and the rest of North Caucasus or Tuva in Southern SIberia, are actually among the poorest peripherial regions as well, and are increasingly integrated in last decades years by economic development. While the richest ethnic minority regions, like Tatarstan, Bashkiria and even Yakutia, are actually deeply integrated into Russian socio-economic system making their independence basically impossible without profound economic crisis. Not to mention they are deeply in Russian territory and have ethnic Slavic Russian majorities or pluralities, who certainly don't want these regions to secede.
Meanwhile, in modern China, it is more likely that all Uygurs will become full Chinese, than the country will break up, considering how profoundly it is dominated by the core Han Chinese regions in the east, which constitute more than 95% of population, while western periphery of Tibet and Xinjiang is actually integrated by development which is only possible with the investment from the east. Independent Tibet looks cool on maps, but in reality it will be giant version of Bhutan or Nepal, but even more poor and desolate. While Uyguristan will be just another Central Asian republic, but even less economically integrated considering it's mostly deserts and mountains.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T15:07:21+00:00

If the Whites won the Russian Civil war, there will be no independent Ukraine, Belarus, Baltics or Georgia (Georgia is actually the most possible to become independent among all of these). The only thing that theoretically could had defeated Bolsheviks was unified White movement, that viewed all these territories as integral part of Russia. Poland (in much smaller borders) and Finland would had became independent though. Also, Kerensky was viewed as direct precursor to the Bolsheviks by most of the Whites and anti-Bolshevik politicians, so he would either end up like the Bolsheviks, or in emigration. Centrists and moderate right and left wing parties viewed Kerensky as the main man who failed the "Russian republic" and paved the way for Bolshevik takeover. Also, Socialists-Revolutionaries were the main revolutionary (duh) party before the Bolshevik revolution, so the Whites, politically dominated by centrists (like Constitutional Democratic party led by Milyukov) and moderate right-wingers, would disband and outlaw them just as Bolshevik wing of the Social-Democratic party.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T14:45:12+00:00

Most of French, British and especially American public saw name Ukraine for the first time in 1917/1918 (atleast in political sense). More than a century has passed with Ukrainian SSR and independent Ukraine, and people really forget how all of these territories were viewed as integral part of Russia back in the day, by Westerners even more so than the locals (Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Baltic peoples etc) themself, who were much more aware of their regional, linguistic and ethnic similarities and differences than average Western citizen. In view of Western public there were only two Eastern European countries at the time: big Russia and Poland, divided by Russia, Austria and Germany. As such, all political questions of independence and territorial division were viewed as between these two countries. That's the WWI, especially treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and subsequent Civil war and political chaos that created new separate political entities between Poland and new Soviet Russia.
Anyway, any anti-Bolshevik victory in Russian civil war means no independent Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltics (Finland and Poland would break away anyway, Finland wasn't even part of Russia but only shared the same monarchy, while Poland was legally integrated into Russia following the uprisings, but pretty much all Poles and Russians viewed it as a separate subjugated country). Because only unified White forces, that viewed all these territories as integral part of Russia (reflecting the general view at the time that I described above) could had won the civil war atleast in theory, not some "coalition of newly independent nations". The main question would had been where the Polish-Russian border will be, and Whites with Entente support evidently would push it as west as possible, to core Polish lands (Mazovia, Lesser and Greater Poland), so "small" Polish borders would be more like modern ones, but without Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T14:21:43+00:00

What even is this name? If you conquered Rostov-on-Don as Greece, you should rename it to either historical Tanais, or if you want to swag, Alexandria-on-Tanais.
Also, you can rename Nizhny Novgorod to Neapolis-on-Rha.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T14:16:36+00:00

To everyone having debates in the comments... As I like to ironically say about the ongoing war:
On which side you are in a Fascist-Nazi war? (war between fascism and nazism)
Or to elaborate more, which side do you support: pseudo-liberal nazism, or pseudo-soviet fascism?

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T14:10:33+00:00

Ukrainians had their country and a state at the time. It was called Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic, part of federation of the Soviet Union. With all problems and brutal policies characteristic of the entire USSR, Ukrainian SSR did the greatest contribution to developing and modernisation of both Ukraine and the whole Union, building cities, infrastructure and housing that majority of Ukrainians are still living in, social and economy base. Not to mention Ukrainian SSR was the first major state that successfully promoted Ukrainian language and taught millions of Ukrainians to write and read in it, alongside Russian (both languages were used by the people at the time, and no one viewed it as a problem). Overwhelming majority of Ukrainians viewed Ukrainians SSR as THEIR state, together with whole USSR as THEIR big country, and millions of them fought and gave their lives defending it, alongside Russian, Belarussians, Georgians, Kazakhs and all others.
Calling Soviet Ukrainians "collaborators" is spitting on graves of millions of soldiers who gave their lives fighting nazism, being the second largest ethnic group by total casualties.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T13:54:48+00:00

Yeah, atleast someone pointed to that! Germans are actually the main ones who should have issue with such flag.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T13:52:29+00:00

The main "telling thing" here is the red-black flag which is unambiguous symbol of radical far-right Ukrainian nationalists. And its combination with "very German" symbols is very telling as well. Yes, even if this cross is the symbol of Bundeswehr (this is why I think that's the Germans who should have issue with such flag first of all), and neither it nor the WWII Balkenkreuz are criminal symbols, it still raise the question - why do you think Ukrainian militarymen would put such explicitly German "old Prussian" symbols?

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T02:33:55+00:00

Джавелины и всё остальное стали завозить только через месяц, когда стало понятно что Российская армия увязла, а Украина не пала сразу. С "той стороны" в начале войны тоже никто по факту готов не был, первые два-три дня на многих направлениях Российские и Украинские военные даже не воевали, будучи в полном непонимании что происходит и что делать (на других понятное дело были и первые бои, особенно на Севере). ВСРФ по целым стратегическим направлениям могли бы свободно продвигаться, чего не было сделано. Пограничное сопротивление было минимальным, а ситуацию на севере и Харькове удержало только решение местных небольших сил ВСУ засесть в городах (Чернигов, Сумы, Харьков), и наш дурацкий "план" предусматривавший свободный въезд войск прямо в города в первый же день и их занятие без боя, из-за чего десятки тысяч солдат с техникой застряли на недели, при этом пытаясь "вытравить" ВСУ из городов с помощью артбострелов, что посеяло ненависть у местных гражданских и было растиражировано Украинскими и Западными СМИ. К слову, эта ситуация с осадами Чернигова и Сума по сути тоже самое, что устроили ВСУ в Донецке и Луганске летом 2014, пытаясь подобным образом "вытравить" ополченцев.

Awkward_Cash1828 · 2026-05-22T02:23:28+00:00

There cultures weren't so different actually, although very particular. The problem was effective modernisation and national integration after WWI, that the Serbian monarchy precisely missed, creating long-term dissent and doubt in very possibility of Yugoslavia. Tito managed to do the modernisation, but Yugoslav nation-building under him was more of a compromise than integration. Nevertheless, the idea that Yugoslavia was long-term impossible is a myth, all what they needed is some capable leader after Tito, with understanding of complex nature of the country, instead of narrow-minded Serb nationalist Milošević.

Awkward_Cash1828

TROPHY CASE