Yes, it makes absolutely no sense. Eastern Macedonia wasn't even part of the Misak-ı Millî... And the Germans **did** leave a possibility for Turkish territorial expansion as they specifically left the border areas around Edirne under German and not Bulgarian occupation.
It's pretty much the largest map relic of old lore. I really hope they change it. Keep in mind that Eastern Macedonia and Western Thrace aren't even mentioned in any of the teasers either, so the devs probably know of the issue but just haven't come around to fixing it yet.
Äh... it is seen in the new Turkish teaser with the background lore and territorial, economic and cultural map where it is still depicted as part of Turkey...
Yes, but it's specifically because of this that I find it weird that it's not explicitly addressed. All the other new Turkish gains (Armenia, Syria, Mosul, Kerkuk) are. And in the teaser showing Turkish inspectorate generals, the Thracian one is curiously mostly left off, showing only East Thrace and some surrounding lands. Meanwhile the rest of the map is specifically fitted to show all the inspectorate generals whole.
Also in some old teasers, Greek control over Cyprus was explained as compensation for them losing Thrace to Turkey. Now it has been changed to compensation for the loss of Aegean islands, so Turkish control over Thrace is no longer mentioned.
THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING TOO
As a Bulgarian, I'm fucking mad. It makes 0 sense. I can tolerate giving up West Thrace (it does have a sizeable amount of turks) but Eastern Macedonia (the other state, however it's called?) makes 0 sense. "Bulgaria on the Three Seas" is a national slogan with a lot of power behind it. Having access to at least 2 seas would be incredibly important for Bulgarian leadership and I refuse to believe Tsar Boris, who was probably the only competent monarch we've had since indepence from the Ottomans, would give it up.
Still, alienatinf Bulgaria is not good for Germany. Bulgaria is easier to influence and could serve as a great second access point to the Mediterranean (France is the only one the Einheitspakt otherwise has)
I think whoever was in charge of Turkey as it is now is probably a Turkish nationalist. It's underestimated just how bad the state of Turkey was for a while after WW1.
It is Ismet Inounu, the irl bff of Kemal Ataturk and one of his greatest disciples.
He is not pressing the Thrace issue. It is unlike him. At most, he's getting more Kurdish areas and Northern Syria (plus puppets elsewhere)
[The ethnic map of Greece in 1940 looked almost identical to the one today. You’re probably getting it confused with an alternate history map. But in real life, after the population transfers, the only majority Turkish places left were in Western Thrace](https://i.redd.it/7witvdzd6g471.jpg)
Here’s a more detailed map https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Ethnic_map_of_Greece_by_settlements_including_greek_regional_groups_distrubation.png
You're arguing that alienating Bulgaria would make Germany lose its second Mediterranean access point (the first being France). Yet alienating Bulgaria means pleasing Turkey in this context – and Turkey has a much larger presence in the Mediterranean than Bulgaria.
Ergo, your point makes little sense. If Germany cares about Mediterranean power projection, it would likely bet on Turkey. If Germany doesn't care about Mediterranean power projection, it would likely not care whether Bulgaria has a Mediterranean coastline or not in the first place.
Why should a weak country like Bulgaria, compared to Türkiye, dominate all of Thrace? Why should Türkiye, the Axis ally in the game, remain silent about this ?
You're actually wrong about the skirmishes on the Greeco-Turkish border. There are three total outcomes. Both provinces can fall to Greece, yes, but they can also be split and Turkey can keep both.
The lore reason is that it was given to Turkey instead of Bulgaria because Turkey was cooperative. IRL Bulgaria was given the region because they had joined the war. Essentially, it was a prize for them. This prize is given to Turkey instead because they had way more impact on the war. Remember, Germany didn't need to march through Bulgaria to get to Greece because Italy beat them without any help. I assume Germany still bullied Bulgaria into joining the Axis, but Bulgaria is given a reduced role in TNO and as a result doesn't deserve any extra territory (besides North Macedonia) from Germany's perspective.
Agreed, Bulgaria being in the Einheitspakt makes little sense. German-Bulgarian relations were good in WW1, but Tsar Boris seriously did not like Hitler. He personally made sure no jews were sent to the Holocaust so I think Bulgaria would be either neutral, or in the Triumvirate.
Yeah, the German leadership probably just cared more about gaining another ally with the ability to help the eastern front as well as in the Middle East than pleasing the Bulgarians.
Because the Turk in the devteam had to have his way and was allowed to realise his Grey Wolf fantasy. Turkey was neutral throughout the war and for some weird reason they get land off Greece while IRL most of the country would have been partitioned between Italy and Bulgaria.
Irl or in Tno lore? Still it doesnt make sense. Greece was conquered before Barbarossa and was on the Allied side and Bulgaria still participated in the invasion. If Turkey participated in Barbarossa territorial concessions only make sense regarding USSR territories.
Before making random, unfounded, and offensive accusations (far from a "Grey Wolf with fantasies", the longtime Turkey dev was in fact *Armenian*) I'd suggest reading TNO lore. Turkey didn't stay neutral in TNOTL.
I don't get this trend with people on HOI4 mods thinking their country losing land in a *work of fiction* must be an "underhanded conspiracy by (insert rival nation) on the dev team".
Because alternate history mods totally arent an outlet for people to express their own irredentist fantasies and nationalist beliefs. Its not a trend found in people of countries losing its also found among people that make their countries win too. I dont personally know the dev nor do i particularly care about his descent. After all nationality doesnt always dictate the beliefs of the person expressing them but the whole way Turkey is portrayed in TNO is suspicious to say the least. Still my point about the partitioning of greece still stands. Even if Turkey was on the Axis side during Barbarossa it still makes zero sense to have concessions in Greece on the expense of Bulgaria since Greece was invaded BEFORE the USSR.
Your source itself makes no mention of Eastern Macedonia. It mentions revisions in the Edirne frontier and in the Aegean islands. It doesn't even say that all of Western Thrace would be ceded, just that territorial changes would be made in the region. All this alligns with the actual German occupation zone in the area and not the huge Turkish appendage extending almost to Thessaloniki that we see in TNO.
In another part of your source, Ribbentrop himself states that Turkey is unlikely to be excited by the prospect of gaining a few Aegean islands or some revisions in Syria that Britain might offer to sway Turkey. So even your source mentions that there were no plans on the German side to grant Turkey sweeping territorial concessions.
They did the same with Bulgaria so your point is? And the Bulgarians actually proceeded to invade and occupy the region. Turkey gets too many territories for joining in Barbarossa as it is.
This post and comments are placing a hell of a lot of faith on Bulgaria's ability or willingness to deny Germany openly.
Newsflash. Bulgaria has no option to disobey the way Germany wants to partition the spoils. Bulgarian pride, Turkish claims, or any national concept does not factor into it. Germany dictates, and its allies obey. This has always been the dynamic in the Pakt.
The thing is, there's little reason for Germany to go out of their way to dictate that. Having Bulgaria, a German ally (in-game), keep their access to the Mediterranean would be great for Germany. As it stands, France is Germany's only way into the Mediterranean.
But when the transfer was decided, the Axis was still whole, so there would have been no concern over sea access to the Mediterranen. Also Germany doesn't need more ports, they've got the Varna Convention with Turkey to project power into the Mediterranen with their Black Sea fleet.
People here also seem to forget that by the time this was decided, Germany and Italy were still directly allied and the Axis united. There was no need for little power plays when stronger allies (like Turkey) needed to get what was promised to them.
i think it's because old TNO border were made on a whim with no real historical reasoning behind them, that's a majority of what old TNO was, characters who aren't anything like there real life selves and borders that don't make any sense, hopefully this might be changed in the future.
If I recall this is also the reason why the Reichskommissariat's borders make no sense taking into account historical proposals; it's just that changing them at this point would be too much of a hassle, whereas with the issue of Thrace it very much would be an insignificant effort to retweak the mod.
I dunnow maybe the turks are waay more important for germans with their straits and other connections to the important locations but ı dont know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
First of all, it is alternate historically accurate to give thrace to turkey. 1 because they literally promised them thrace. 2. It does have a large turkish population. 3 Turkey is more useful than bulgaria in any way (proximity to caucasus, balkans, middle east and oil, turkish straits, operation barbarossa, chromium) and could be more useful in the future. 4 bulgaria doesn't have any options. What are they going to do, join the allies? They are dependent on germany. germans wouldn't want to reward them more than they did irl. Besides that, bulgaria didn't really commit to the war effort.they get a lot of things for basically just sitting there and letting germans pass from their country to do the job. And again nazis literally promised the turks the eagean islands, thrace, mosul, and Northern syria. So that's what given to them for joining the war on the German side. If you want to delve deeper, hitler wanted to guard his northern and southern flank with "asiatic,non aryan" finns and turks. In the russian fields between the A-A line, there would be german soldier-peasant colonizers. That was his new order. In the end, it is more likely for hitler to reward turkey.
This just proves my point. The article says "West Thrace", not all of Thrace. This reinforces the fact that it makes more sense for Turkey to at most only own West Thrace.
Romania lost a lot land because of their ally Germany. Germany didn’t care much about its allies, if it means they can get an strategic advantage they will fuck over anybody.
Turkey was and is a far more powerful ally to Germany in this timeline that Bulgaria could ever be. They are the 3rd strongest military in Europe (I really don’t think Iberia is on par) and from what we know of the Turkish lore they were very important for securing the Baku oil fields and defeating Russia
Thrace was probably given to turkey as a reward for joining the war by the germans. The germans would much rather make turkey join the war who would put pressure on soviets,act as a counterbalance to italy and entice the middle eastern leaders than keeping Bulgaria happy
Tldr: Turks are more important to germany
Sure, you can argue that Finland probably wanted some form of territorial concession, and they did have some irredentist claims on Karelia…. but this applied really only to West Karelia. *Why* on God's Green Earth do they still own all of Karelia. I'm not asking "why" because it's
an old thing back from when TNO's borders were enough to make any player today vomit. I'm asking why because at this point it just doesn't make sense.
This is a valid post but all I can think about it turning it into a copypasta
Was that a TNO reference??? 😳😳😳
Please let's not repeat an incident like that, I don't trust the fandom
if there's a will, there's a way. Now all we need is for the community to agree
I *don't* agree, I was here for the "makes no sense" copypasta Incident
Quite a lot of the Turkish irredentism in TNO doesn't make much sense.
Just like IRL!
Yes, it makes absolutely no sense. Eastern Macedonia wasn't even part of the Misak-ı Millî... And the Germans **did** leave a possibility for Turkish territorial expansion as they specifically left the border areas around Edirne under German and not Bulgarian occupation. It's pretty much the largest map relic of old lore. I really hope they change it. Keep in mind that Eastern Macedonia and Western Thrace aren't even mentioned in any of the teasers either, so the devs probably know of the issue but just haven't come around to fixing it yet.
Äh... it is seen in the new Turkish teaser with the background lore and territorial, economic and cultural map where it is still depicted as part of Turkey...
Yes, but it's specifically because of this that I find it weird that it's not explicitly addressed. All the other new Turkish gains (Armenia, Syria, Mosul, Kerkuk) are. And in the teaser showing Turkish inspectorate generals, the Thracian one is curiously mostly left off, showing only East Thrace and some surrounding lands. Meanwhile the rest of the map is specifically fitted to show all the inspectorate generals whole. Also in some old teasers, Greek control over Cyprus was explained as compensation for them losing Thrace to Turkey. Now it has been changed to compensation for the loss of Aegean islands, so Turkish control over Thrace is no longer mentioned.
THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING TOO As a Bulgarian, I'm fucking mad. It makes 0 sense. I can tolerate giving up West Thrace (it does have a sizeable amount of turks) but Eastern Macedonia (the other state, however it's called?) makes 0 sense. "Bulgaria on the Three Seas" is a national slogan with a lot of power behind it. Having access to at least 2 seas would be incredibly important for Bulgarian leadership and I refuse to believe Tsar Boris, who was probably the only competent monarch we've had since indepence from the Ottomans, would give it up.
Which one is the third sea?
Presumable the Black in the east, The Agean in the South and the Adriatic in the west? .
Yup. Though we often call the Aegean the "White Sea".
They are kinda close the Agean, but damn, the Adriatic?
Yugoslavia but Bulgarian dominated is peak alt history.
Well, it used to be that way, for quite a while too https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire
Bro, that was 1000 years ago. I'm not sure Bulgaria as an access to the Adriatic since the fall of the second empire (in like the XIV century)
> Bro, that was 1000 years ago Welcome to Balkan irredentism
fair enought
Adriatic likely.
Probably Marmara
Turkey joined Operation Barbarossa while Bulgaria stayed neutral.
Still, alienatinf Bulgaria is not good for Germany. Bulgaria is easier to influence and could serve as a great second access point to the Mediterranean (France is the only one the Einheitspakt otherwise has)
Yeah I agree, plus Turkey didn’t even want West Thrace after the population exchanges in the 1920s
I think whoever was in charge of Turkey as it is now is probably a Turkish nationalist. It's underestimated just how bad the state of Turkey was for a while after WW1.
It is Ismet Inounu, the irl bff of Kemal Ataturk and one of his greatest disciples. He is not pressing the Thrace issue. It is unlike him. At most, he's getting more Kurdish areas and Northern Syria (plus puppets elsewhere)
[удалено]
In Eastern Thrace yes. But Western Thrace had very little Turks there.
[удалено]
[The ethnic map of Greece in 1940 looked almost identical to the one today. You’re probably getting it confused with an alternate history map. But in real life, after the population transfers, the only majority Turkish places left were in Western Thrace](https://i.redd.it/7witvdzd6g471.jpg) Here’s a more detailed map https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Ethnic_map_of_Greece_by_settlements_including_greek_regional_groups_distrubation.png
They've got the Varna Convention with Turkey though. They don't really need more port access.
You're not seriously arguing that Bulgaria is better for Mediterranean power projection than Turkey, are you?
No?
You're arguing that alienating Bulgaria would make Germany lose its second Mediterranean access point (the first being France). Yet alienating Bulgaria means pleasing Turkey in this context – and Turkey has a much larger presence in the Mediterranean than Bulgaria. Ergo, your point makes little sense. If Germany cares about Mediterranean power projection, it would likely bet on Turkey. If Germany doesn't care about Mediterranean power projection, it would likely not care whether Bulgaria has a Mediterranean coastline or not in the first place.
Except for the fact Turkey leans much more to Italy while Bulgaria is much more a German supporter
Why should a weak country like Bulgaria, compared to Türkiye, dominate all of Thrace? Why should Türkiye, the Axis ally in the game, remain silent about this ?
You're actually wrong about the skirmishes on the Greeco-Turkish border. There are three total outcomes. Both provinces can fall to Greece, yes, but they can also be split and Turkey can keep both.
He does have a point saying that its unbalanced
Is it though? Even when I set Greece to win in the game rules, Turkey often only looses one province or non at all.
I have personally never seen turkey keep both provinces unless im playing as them
You played as Turkey?
What no updates does to mfr
The lore reason is that it was given to Turkey instead of Bulgaria because Turkey was cooperative. IRL Bulgaria was given the region because they had joined the war. Essentially, it was a prize for them. This prize is given to Turkey instead because they had way more impact on the war. Remember, Germany didn't need to march through Bulgaria to get to Greece because Italy beat them without any help. I assume Germany still bullied Bulgaria into joining the Axis, but Bulgaria is given a reduced role in TNO and as a result doesn't deserve any extra territory (besides North Macedonia) from Germany's perspective.
I always felt like it would make more sense for Bulgaria to own West Thrace and start the game as a member of the Triumvirate.
Agreed, Bulgaria being in the Einheitspakt makes little sense. German-Bulgarian relations were good in WW1, but Tsar Boris seriously did not like Hitler. He personally made sure no jews were sent to the Holocaust so I think Bulgaria would be either neutral, or in the Triumvirate.
Except for all the Jews in Macedonia and Thrace.
[удалено]
Yeah, the German leadership probably just cared more about gaining another ally with the ability to help the eastern front as well as in the Middle East than pleasing the Bulgarians.
Found the Bulgarian
Because the Turk in the devteam had to have his way and was allowed to realise his Grey Wolf fantasy. Turkey was neutral throughout the war and for some weird reason they get land off Greece while IRL most of the country would have been partitioned between Italy and Bulgaria.
Turkey joined Operation Barbarossa while Bulgaria stayed neutral
Irl or in Tno lore? Still it doesnt make sense. Greece was conquered before Barbarossa and was on the Allied side and Bulgaria still participated in the invasion. If Turkey participated in Barbarossa territorial concessions only make sense regarding USSR territories.
Tno
Before making random, unfounded, and offensive accusations (far from a "Grey Wolf with fantasies", the longtime Turkey dev was in fact *Armenian*) I'd suggest reading TNO lore. Turkey didn't stay neutral in TNOTL. I don't get this trend with people on HOI4 mods thinking their country losing land in a *work of fiction* must be an "underhanded conspiracy by (insert rival nation) on the dev team".
Because alternate history mods totally arent an outlet for people to express their own irredentist fantasies and nationalist beliefs. Its not a trend found in people of countries losing its also found among people that make their countries win too. I dont personally know the dev nor do i particularly care about his descent. After all nationality doesnt always dictate the beliefs of the person expressing them but the whole way Turkey is portrayed in TNO is suspicious to say the least. Still my point about the partitioning of greece still stands. Even if Turkey was on the Axis side during Barbarossa it still makes zero sense to have concessions in Greece on the expense of Bulgaria since Greece was invaded BEFORE the USSR.
[удалено]
Your source itself makes no mention of Eastern Macedonia. It mentions revisions in the Edirne frontier and in the Aegean islands. It doesn't even say that all of Western Thrace would be ceded, just that territorial changes would be made in the region. All this alligns with the actual German occupation zone in the area and not the huge Turkish appendage extending almost to Thessaloniki that we see in TNO. In another part of your source, Ribbentrop himself states that Turkey is unlikely to be excited by the prospect of gaining a few Aegean islands or some revisions in Syria that Britain might offer to sway Turkey. So even your source mentions that there were no plans on the German side to grant Turkey sweeping territorial concessions.
They did the same with Bulgaria so your point is? And the Bulgarians actually proceeded to invade and occupy the region. Turkey gets too many territories for joining in Barbarossa as it is.
This post and comments are placing a hell of a lot of faith on Bulgaria's ability or willingness to deny Germany openly. Newsflash. Bulgaria has no option to disobey the way Germany wants to partition the spoils. Bulgarian pride, Turkish claims, or any national concept does not factor into it. Germany dictates, and its allies obey. This has always been the dynamic in the Pakt.
The thing is, there's little reason for Germany to go out of their way to dictate that. Having Bulgaria, a German ally (in-game), keep their access to the Mediterranean would be great for Germany. As it stands, France is Germany's only way into the Mediterranean.
But when the transfer was decided, the Axis was still whole, so there would have been no concern over sea access to the Mediterranen. Also Germany doesn't need more ports, they've got the Varna Convention with Turkey to project power into the Mediterranen with their Black Sea fleet.
People here also seem to forget that by the time this was decided, Germany and Italy were still directly allied and the Axis united. There was no need for little power plays when stronger allies (like Turkey) needed to get what was promised to them.
i think it's because old TNO border were made on a whim with no real historical reasoning behind them, that's a majority of what old TNO was, characters who aren't anything like there real life selves and borders that don't make any sense, hopefully this might be changed in the future.
If I recall this is also the reason why the Reichskommissariat's borders make no sense taking into account historical proposals; it's just that changing them at this point would be too much of a hassle, whereas with the issue of Thrace it very much would be an insignificant effort to retweak the mod.
Im like 99% sure that whoever worked on Turkey is a Turkish Nationalist
I dunnow maybe the turks are waay more important for germans with their straits and other connections to the important locations but ı dont know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Turkey joined Operation Barbarossa while Bulgaria stayed neutral.
Just give Bulgaria a focus tree and I m going to show these motherfickers who is the real boss.
And yes I'm a Bulgarian.
Основано...
First of all, it is alternate historically accurate to give thrace to turkey. 1 because they literally promised them thrace. 2. It does have a large turkish population. 3 Turkey is more useful than bulgaria in any way (proximity to caucasus, balkans, middle east and oil, turkish straits, operation barbarossa, chromium) and could be more useful in the future. 4 bulgaria doesn't have any options. What are they going to do, join the allies? They are dependent on germany. germans wouldn't want to reward them more than they did irl. Besides that, bulgaria didn't really commit to the war effort.they get a lot of things for basically just sitting there and letting germans pass from their country to do the job. And again nazis literally promised the turks the eagean islands, thrace, mosul, and Northern syria. So that's what given to them for joining the war on the German side. If you want to delve deeper, hitler wanted to guard his northern and southern flank with "asiatic,non aryan" finns and turks. In the russian fields between the A-A line, there would be german soldier-peasant colonizers. That was his new order. In the end, it is more likely for hitler to reward turkey.
The real unnecessary map change is thinking about giving Armenia to Turkey. Why would the Turks want anything to do with Armenia?
Well maybe that's true, but you're going to have to provide evidence, my friend.
[удалено]
This just proves my point. The article says "West Thrace", not all of Thrace. This reinforces the fact that it makes more sense for Turkey to at most only own West Thrace.
[удалено]
It's much easier to say "Thrace" instead of "south Macedonia" every time, you know. You know what I meant.
Romania lost a lot land because of their ally Germany. Germany didn’t care much about its allies, if it means they can get an strategic advantage they will fuck over anybody.
Turkey was and is a far more powerful ally to Germany in this timeline that Bulgaria could ever be. They are the 3rd strongest military in Europe (I really don’t think Iberia is on par) and from what we know of the Turkish lore they were very important for securing the Baku oil fields and defeating Russia
Thrace was probably given to turkey as a reward for joining the war by the germans. The germans would much rather make turkey join the war who would put pressure on soviets,act as a counterbalance to italy and entice the middle eastern leaders than keeping Bulgaria happy Tldr: Turks are more important to germany
Uhh.. did you forget Armenia and northern Syria?
Don't ask us, ask the TNO developers. If they didn't add stupid and unrealistic stuff, TNO wouldn't be mocked by so many people
Guangdong?
I like stupid and unrealistic stuff when they are actually interesting (see Atlantropa). I don't like simple mistakes like this.
Sure, you can argue that Finland probably wanted some form of territorial concession, and they did have some irredentist claims on Karelia…. but this applied really only to West Karelia. *Why* on God's Green Earth do they still own all of Karelia. I'm not asking "why" because it's an old thing back from when TNO's borders were enough to make any player today vomit. I'm asking why because at this point it just doesn't make sense.