Talk:Lithuanian colonies

Very good! Any ideas on how Lithuanian cuisine can add to the local Tex-Mex? [PB]

Thanks :) . I'll leave that up to you about the cuisine lol; I will note that Lithuanian national food - cepelinai - is made from potatoes (so, technically it came from America, as potatoes came from there); also Lithuanians likes to eat soups and such. Maybe Tejans could be using various soups instead of sauce for nachos lol? Abdul-aziz 14:21, 20 Sep 2005 (PDT)

I move to archive at least some of this discussion...it's taking up a lot of the page and any subsequent comments I fear would be overwhelmed. BoArthur

Some comments by IJzeren Jan

Very good!

As for Tejas and Maasai, I don't see any problem there. None of them are really "owned" by anyone (although several of us have done some work on Tejas on the side), and I think your story will fit in fine. In fact, this colonisation policy could also help in explaining how Lithuania proper became such a terrible mess in the Interbellum: the colonies undoubtedly swallowed up quite some of the resources of this - generally poor - country.

Regarding New Lithuania: we indeed had a lenghty discussion lately about the probability of permanent settlement of Antarctica. It became one of the rare cases where we had to turn down a proposal for being far too improbable. Mind, we have lots of improbabilities in our constructed universe; look for example at the Scots of Egypt. But even so, we don't want to violate the laws of nature. That does not mean that I want to discard your proposal or anything; after all, the Scandinavians have some permanent settlement on Antarctica too, and the Chinese apparently even have a city. But we need to figure out where exactly New Lithuania is located. It's important to realise that large chunks of Antarctica are in Scandinavian and Chinese hands, while the rest appears to be uninhabitable. But of course, a state-supported action backed up by the rich nobility has far more chance of succeeding than a Tejan fishing boat that off its course. Since you mention that New Lithuania mostly supports itself by traditing with South America, it seems to me that the most probable place would be somewhere one the Antarctic Peninsula.

And there we have a problem: the Peninsula is already taken by Scandinavia. And I don't think the Scandinavians would be too happy allowing a Lithuanian state to emerge on its territory. But on the other hand, I believe the Peninsula (apparently the only piece of Antarctica where human settlement is not totally out of the question) is big enough for more "statelets". After all, New Lithuania doesn't necessarily need to be big and huge, does it? So what cóuld have happened, for example, is this: that the Lithuanians did something similar as they did in Tejas by leasing it from the Scandinavians. Interwar Lithuania didn't have too many friends, that's for certain, but it must also be said that most European states were quite afraid of the anti-Western propaganda of the Russian SNOR regime; they had an interest in maintaining an artificial state like Lithuania as a buffer state (a "cordon sanitaire", one might say) against possible Russian aggression. Besides, Scandinavia was still on very good terms with Germany, the only state that still really supported Lithuania. Scandinavia might also have had its own interest in allowing the Lithuanians to settle in Antarctica: it could certainly use some additional human resources (not Scandinavia's strongest side!) in settling the area.

At some point during the Second Great War, Scandinavia got involved, too. That might be the moment when New Lithuania grabbed the opportunity to proclaim its independence. The Lithuanian nationalists might have planned that for much longer, but had simply managed to conceal their hidden agenda for the rest of the world.

Kristian?

Some more observations:

Somewhere in the text your refer to "president Smetona". But that's impossible, because Lithuania in the Interwar Period was a kingdom. The way I see king Mindaugas II, he was a rather decent and intelligent man, who simply was unable to exercise much control over the events in his country. I don't remember off-hand who succeeded him, but I don't think the nationalists turned Lithuania into a republic.

I haven't made a final decision yet about the precise role of Smetona and Woldemaras. I'd like to keep Woldemaras as Lithuania's first prime minister. My idea of Lithuania is that it was a mess from the very beginning: lots of governments, lots of elections, etc. The 1926 elections, despite all kinds of fraud and falsification, led to a majority of socialists - communists - Belarussians. And on this moment the Lithuanian nationalists took their chance and stage a coup, supported also by the rich Veneds, who had reason enough to be afraid of such a majority. Smetona probably became prime minister. And Woldemaras? Minister of defense perhaps? Anyway, it's clear that there was a strong difference of opinion between the more moderate Smetona and the more radical Woldemaras. The deposal of Woldemaras in 1929 is something we could keep, too. He may have returned to power later, during the late 1930s. I don't know really what the later fate of both man has been: I think Smetona died sometime during the war, while I see Woldemaras as the leader of the later SNORist Lithuanian state (1947-1949). I don't know if I have written that down already somewhere, but that's how I see it. After that, I assumed he played a minor political role in the RTC, but that could be changed if you like.

Furthermore, you write that after the war the RTC didn't care much for the Lithuanians in Tejas, Maasai and Antarctica. But that's very much against the spirit of the Veneds, who after all are still the dominant nation in the RTC. Most of them tend to see the Lithuanians as part of the same nation, and they actually do care a lot for their compatriots outside the country. And not without exaggeration! I'm sure there is an equivalent of here's "Wspólnota Polska" (Komuńtać Wenedka i Litwańka, KWiL), and a special Sejm commission for maintaining contacts with Veneds and Lithuanians outside the RTC (not only in the former colonies, but also in Belarus and Ukraine). If over the decades a more moderate bunch of people got in charge of New Lithuania, I suppose a number of Veneds might have settled there, too, and the country will have enjoyed extensive financial support from the RTC.

Last but not least, I like your solution for the orthography problem. As for the current orthography used in Lithuania (a compromise between Wenedyk orthography and Smetonian orthography), I suggest the following:

• v is written w
• š is written sz
• ž is written ż
• č is written cz

For the rest, we do away with those û and the like, and all those specifically Lithuanian characters (ė, į, ų, etc.) come from Smetonian orthography. That makes is also pretty easy for me to transform Lithuanian names from *here* to *there*. How about that?

Cheers, IJzeren Jan 02:25, 21 Sep 2005 (PDT)

As for orthography, the nassal letters (ą,ę,į,ų) came from Polish and I am not sure if Wenedyk has them, and if it doesn't, then they should be changed by other characters I guess - Smetonian alphabet doesn't necessarily has to be current Lithuanian alphabet, it might have it's differences too according to realities of Bethisad (e.g. double letters or letter with dash above (as in Latvian) could have been used for long letters). Ė could be used as it denotes special character. If a change from "W" to "V" was done in Smetonian alphabet however, I think it would probably have been one of those more popular changes, as "V" is easier to write than "W" (actually double "v"), and therefore probably wouldn't be changed back. As for "sz" and such they might have been changed back for the purpose of easier typing in Wenedyk typewriters; at first it should be decided what actual letters were changed and into what; it might be not necessarily "š" in Smetonian alphabet to denote that sound either; or there might have been more letters, e.g. a single letter for "ch" (for example, "x" according to cyrillic alphabet, or "q") and such.

As for Antarctica, I commented some at talk page of Antarctica about it's possible habitation. For now it is just said that Free Lithuania is somewhere on the coast (where climate is milder), it might not necessarilly be on the peninsula (e.g. McMurdo station, shown here http://www.theice.org/gifs/mcmurdo1.gif http://oak.ucc.nau.edu/llc7/Antarctic_Map.jpg, is on the coast at the other side of Antarctica; temperatures there are averagelly -3 in January and -28 in August, which, although seems cooler due to wind, is not uninhabittable; however, any major settlement of course would be unviable; but that is the point that the colony was established despite of all the economic uselessness and high costs). Also, I don't know when exactly Scandinavians claimed their portion of Antarctica, and the colony might have been established despite of their claims, as it is said that it was drawn into various conflicts. Free Lithuania is two settlements, Voldemaravas and Smetoniškis, and in those settlements they have absolute power; they claims whole Antarctica but does not control it; due to such claims actual border of Free Lithuania is not delimited, but they use some areas around settlements for tourism and such. As Antarcitica is vast and cold, it is impossible to control it as it is done in other territories, e.g. set up customs and such; it is impossible to even build roads through the icecaps. So the connection between Smetoniškis and Voldemaravas is by ships and so is the connection to remaining world, also maybe there can be an airstrip somewhere. It might be so that Free Lithuania is an unrecognised entity by Scandinavians and others; but due to the the fact that most of people in Free Lithuania are armed with weapons and political and other reasons it is not worth for them to take any action.

More moderate people did not got in charge of Free Lithuania over the time due to it being a direct democracy and seen as a quite struggling nationalist state under very harsh conditions and without future by non nationalists; as the people who moved to live there in interwar were primarily nationalists, and most of the local youth who did not liked the way the country was ran emigrated (while some more nationalists immigrated), there was no reasons for it to change. There are some Veneds who moved there when war started, as well as Latvians, other eastern Europeans; however most of them came back to Europe once war ended, only ones ideologically close to the nationalists remained.

As for Smetona, I would probably suggest that he moved to New Lithuania and died there while the war was not ended still; after the revolution in New Lithuania mentioned in this article (he was not killed or executed though)? As I understand SNORism was rather Russian nationalism which supported Russian nation over e.g. Lithuanian and other nations; in that case I doubt nationalists such as Voldemaras would support the regime. Or was SNORism not that? Voldemaras could have done that for betetr career though; then however Voldemaravas would have been renamed by the local natonalists I guess.

You can write your own ideas and such about the views of RTC towards the former colonies of Lithuania, and as I understand the decition about monarchy is not full yet, but you can change that too. Maybe Voldemaras could have been influental minister of defense then, who also would have served as leader of all these expansionist projects.Abdul-aziz 03:59, 21 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Well, as for Antarctica, it looks like both McMurdo and the Peninsula are real possibilities. I tend to agree with Kristian that the Peninsula would probably be the better solution, also because McMurdo is not exactly on the right side of the continent from a European perspective. I'll leave the ultimate choice to you.

How the RTC would react to New Lithuania? Well, like I said, it would probably be highly interested since it considers its inhabitants compatriots, albeit slightly recalcitrant ones. It would pretty much depend on the kind of people who are currently in charge of NL, though. If they are still ardent nationalists who despise anything coming from the Republic and just wait for their chance to take over Lithuania again, relations certainly won't be friendly. But I suppose the interwar nationalists who set up the whole thing have pretty much died out by now, and one or two new generations of more reasonable people will probably have come to an understanding with the motherland. The Republic will probably object to the name "Free Lithuania"; "New Lithuania" wouldn't be a problem.

Okay, Smetona moved to New Lithuania and died there (froze to death?). Of course, he could have been captured by the Russians and killed too, but not necessarily.

Woldemaras. You are basically right about the snorist ideology. But keep in mind that after GW2 there were plenty of non-Slavic, pro-snorist regimes. Voldemaras' point of view is not entirely without reason: he'd rather have an independent Lithuania as a Russian satellite state than return it under Venedic occupation. In fact, now that I think of it, the Lithuanian nationalists who colonised Antarctica might actually have shared Voldemaras' views and been backed up by snorist Russia! I have never claimed any part of Antarctica for Russia, but it must have some portion of it, too, and it would be thinkable that it allowed the pro-snorist Lithuanias to establish their own statelets on its territory. In that case, I'm curious what became of New Lithuania after the fall of the SNOR!

Re:Monarchy. Okay, let's qssify this: in the interwar period, Lithuania was a Kingdom under King Mindaugas II and after his death under king Algirdas II, who later also became king of Veneda. Before a Venedic-Lithuania reunification could be realised, both countries were invaded in 1939 and ceased to exist. In February 1949, the RTC was founded and based on the merger of two equal kingdoms: Veneda and Lithuania. So in other words, yes, Lithuania was a kingdom in the Interwar period and also after the war. I should update my pages once I have some time.

--IJzeren Jan 05:26, 21 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Antarctica

As Jan pointed out, the Peninsula is one of the very few places where permanent human habitation is not completely impossible. McMurdo Sound is indeed another place. Scandinavian territory is between 45 degrees west and 135 east latitudes, encompassing Queen Maud Land, the Peninsula, and West Antarctica. IMO, Jan's proposals, wherein the Scandinavians supported the Lithuanians by allowing them to leased the colony in the Peninsula, is more realistic and in tune with QSS.

One thing to consider is that the Lithuanians would have had no experience in colonizing polar lands like the Scandinavians have. For instance, the Scandinavian Sirius Patrols are conducted every year by the navy to cross Antarctica and Greenland to exert its sovereignty. Another thing is that the Scandinavian Realm has the biggest merchant fleet and one of the largest naval fleet in the world. It would be more realistic for the Lithuanians to allow themselves to be aided by the Scandinavians. It would be impossible for Lithuania to defend its Antarctic claims should it provoke the Scandinavian Realm -- and more so if New Lithuania is in the McMurdo Sound, because its on the other side of the continent. All the Scandinavians have to do is to issue privateering licenses to its merchant fleet, allowing it to confiscate any ships trying to supply the Lithuanian colony, and the colony would soon starve to death. The navy does not even have to get involved. Boreanesia 04:21, 21 Sep 2005 (PDT)

The way I understand it is that colony was established in late 30s and there were some initial disputes with Scandinavians, and as it is written in article Scandinavians did not allowed seal hunting at first in most of terriories, probably via means you suggested. However, actual invasion or serious blockade, as Jan pointed out, at the time immidietly before war would have probably been not in interest of the powers due to Lithuania being a buffer state and as nationalists ruled Lithuania, it would have been likely that any attack, direct or indirect on New Lithuania would have triggered Lithuanians to war against the country masterminding such actions; and although Lithuanians would have been likely to loose, no such war was needed at the time. Maybe Scandinavians would have invaded it eventually, but then Great War started, New Lithuania became as an important place of former rulers of various occupied Eastern European countries, including Lithuania, who went there; also, due to war interests of Scandinavia were shifted elsewhere. Also, two settlements are a very small area, which is completely unimportant economically; except that it is a place for offshore companies and money laundering by now. As for Lithuanians being not used to Antarctic exploration; they weren't for sure, and hence many people, mostly Slavs, died during the building of towns and many mistakes were done. Basically it was a quite useless and costly nationalist thing the way I see it. I guess probably it would be the best if it was either established in the land which was still unclaimed in 30s, or on borders of claimed areas. As for Scandinavians, probably it would be good that some Scandinavian companies were hired for transportation of some goods at first, and hence the existance of New Lithuania was profitable for Scandinavians? It is just one of possibilities though, and it is good if we'd assume if Lithaunians did not have a large navy despite of colonisation campaign and hired private companies for transportation instead. Abdul-aziz 05:23, 21 Sep 2005 (PDT)

The Scandinavian claim in IB was formally settled well before the 30s, when Amundsen won the race to the south pole. Any later claims, especially from those who did not participate in the race, would no doubt be seen as ridiculous. Since you mention that New Lithuania mostly supports itself by trading with South America, I interpret this to mean the most probable place would be somewhere on the Antarctic Peninsula — i.e., Scandinavian Territory.

Now, as Jan pointed out, the Lithuanian nationalist government knows that western powers would have been interested in keeping Lithuania as a buffer state against possible Russian aggression. Would it really have dared provoke one of the powers that was interested in keeping it a buffer state? I'm not so sure about that. But then again, ultra-nationalist governments seem to promote infinitely insane ideas. In any case, you're right in saying that Scandinavia would have been too preoccupied by the outbreak of the Great War to be bothered with New Lithuania. But right after the war, I doubt New Lithuania could still exist if it continued to provoke the Scandinavian Realm by claiming the entire continent.

I still think Jan's proposal is more realistic (and sane) — i.e., that the Scandinavians supported the Lithuanians by allowing them to leased the colony in the Antarctic Peninsula.

Boreanesia 07:11, 21 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Indeed. Could it perhaps have been that New Lithuania was part of the dealings in Visby? Its independence (on a relatively small territory, mind) might have been a concession to Russia in return for the restoration of the RTC (from which Russia would have to withdraw its troops).

But like I said, McMurdo cóuld work too, if we follow another scenario I suggested: as far as I know it does not belong to either the Scandinavian or the Chinese sections, so it could in fact be Russian. In the years 1947-1949 there was a snorist Lithuanian state, and New Lithuania was probably connected to it. Russia might actually have allowed the Lithuanian pro-snorists to establish a New Lithuania on its own territory in order to have a second take on the RTC later. Mind, Russia had both the resources and the experience with the climate! --IJzeren Jan 09:03, 21 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Right. Russia, via the Far East, could have claimed the section of Antarctica around the Ross Ice Shelf (including McMurdo Sound). Now, since Lithuania was at the time seen as a buffer state between Russia and the west, it could be that Lithuania sought the help of both Scandinavia and Russia. That would explain the existence of two Lithuanian settlements in Antarctica, collectively known as New Lithuania, with one enclave in the Scandinavian sector and another in the Russian sector. Boreanesia 09:34, 21 Sep 2005 (PDT)

The reason why I don't like the idea of lease is that the reason why Smetona and Voldemaras decided to do the colonisation of Maasai and later Antarctica, as it's written in this article, was because they weren't interested in continuing the Tejas thing as they wanted lands for themselves, rather than leased, and they did not believed that the Lithuanian parts of Tejas would ever actually get independence as Pakštas believed. I would suggest that the Lithuanian nationalists maybe split up after the war, a part of them going pro-snorist, and the other part still thinking about the recreation of fully independent Lithuanian state and prefferably with most of Belarusian lands as it used to be too. The first considered latter to be idealists, while the latter considered the first to be traitors. As I understand, Scandinavians at first colonised the peninsula; in that case, as you have noted Lithuanians wouldn't have really wanted to have troubles with other powers, and so established the settlements far away from there; the full project included many settlements named after various Lithuanian leaders as this article states however, due to high costs the full project was probably more a piece of propaganda; not enough people wanted to settle there and therefore only two settlements were built, and before war only few hundred people lived there; durin gthe war some refugees from Lithuanian government and such fleed to the area. Now I suggest the following; what is against something might be altered:

• At first, Scandinavians protested against this establishment officially, did not allowed to hunt whales in the territories claimed as territorial waters of New Lithuania. They seeked their own share in the colony, as previously they hadn't established colony in that part of continent (correct me if I am wrong); unofficial negotiations started but Lithuanians actually did everything to make them take as long as possible, at the same time quite unsuccesfully seeking for foreign support. As for colonization itself, maybe Lithuanians hired some people who had experience in that to control the building, however it is more likely taht they did not, as it was greatly mismanaged, unprepared for the local climate conditions and many people died during construction.
• The war started, Scandinavia became preoccupied with other things. Mass wave of refugees fleed from Europe, especially Lithuania and some surroudning countries, to the New Lithuania (both settlements are actually quite close to each other); there were many empty buildings as cities were prepared for more people; the population of the land increased 5 or so times to several thousand.
• Smetona at first remained official Prime minister(?) of Lithuania and officially ruled it from there, although he had few lands actually under his control (no longer Lithuania-proper). Almost whole government retreated there, and as it was doing nothing for teh common good, locals staged a coup after whcih direct democracy was established; which became a temporary solution "until Lithuania is liberated". Smetona died after several months.
• During the war New Lithuania was supported by various factions which were against Russia.
• After the war, New Lithuania did not support the snorist regime in Lithuania, also because the many of the people in New Lithuania were former rulers of the country and they expected that once they will come back to power. Those hopes dwindled however later; but New Lithuania did not recognise Lithuania as part of RTC.
• The generations changed, but generally as New Lithuania is a very bad place to live - it is relatively poor, cold, no entertainment or universities, no good hospitals, no social security or such available there, everything costs much due to transportation, etc. the non-radical youth used to emmigrate to Lithuania or elsewhere and still does; the population in Free Lithuania decreases, despite immigration of some nationalists. Lithuania offered automatic citizenship to anyone from Free Lithuania who wants to come back. In general, people from Free Lithuania are seen by common Lithuanians as very stubborn, very nationalistic, quite backwards, kind of as "rednecks" are in America. There are jokes about them like "What a person from Free Lithuania would think if he woulc visit Vilnius and temperature would be -30C ? "It's damn hot here... But hey, any temperature is good to kill Veneds"". Most of people in Lithuania doesn't understands why Free Lithuanians lives there, as economic and other situation is much better in Lithuania itself. Basically, nationalist ideology is the only thing that keeps Free Lithuania alive. It is kinda similar to e.g. settlement of Orania in real world, established in desert by Afrikaners of South Africa in order to protect Africaner culture.
• After war, the political situation for the Free Lithuania to remain independent was so that many countries, ones which did not had their territorie sin Antarctica, seeked to make it their ally and therefore supported it. At the same time, they did not want that it would fall to any other power (situation as it was in Balkans in late XIX century with Austria, Russia and Ottomans and small countries inbetween them). Another reason was that although Lithuania did not like the style of Free Lithuania, as Jan said it would not have left it's compatriots to die in war or such, and therefore to some extent supported it; at least attempted to reach the local youth and inform it about the abilities to move to Lithuania. As well, the existance of Free Lithuania was profitable to some Scandinavian companies, which were hired to transport various materials and tourists there; therefore these companies weren't interested into the dying out of colony and as for the take over, it would have been costly.
• As for the claim over whole continent, you are right that it would have most likely triggered war; probably this was only at start and then some agreement was reached with Scandinavians that Free Lithuania would only be left a small share of land around settlements only (or agreement similar to Chinese-Indian one over Aksai Chin would be signed, taht is, keep official claims but respect de facto boundary for indefinite time), and they would have to agree to quotas given to them for whale and seal hunting and maybe some other limitations? In that case Free Lithuania now claims only a small part of Antarctica, as well Maasai and Lithuania (similarly as Taiwan claims whole China, Mongolia and Tanu Tuva in real world).
• Russia might have attemted a take over of the area using the help of local snorists (as some of local nationalists probably supported snorism). Due to it being a direct democracy, it might be so that temporary pro-snorists were actually in majority also. Some other actions against local establishment might have been done by other powers. You can add yourself as for history of Free Lithuania if you want; it might be so that e.g. it might be so at some time paths of both towns separated and they went different ways (e.g. by one town going snorist way and other non-snorist nationalist) and only later came back together or such. As you are in Bethisad for longer and know the international situations better, you can also decide on what foreign opinions on Free Lithuania were and are, what countries supported it and what were opposed to it.
• Free Lithuania has been used for establishing offshore companies as well as money laundering.
• As for actual place of the settlement, you should probably offer it based on some of these facts; it would ave been the place where other powers, such as Scandinavia, would have been least likely to intervene, but on the coast, to be habittable. The actual distance from Lithuania did not matter that much for the ruling nationalists, they believed that soon planes would be capable to fly such distances and such, as well it was a piece of propaganda and pride rather than of economic feasability. Abdul-aziz 11:43, 21 Sep 2005 (PDT)

I see now why you're not in favor of the leasing idea. But I'm still not convince that Lithuania could have done all this alone without leasing. I mean, Lithuania is a tiny country. Even if Scandinavia became preoccupied during the war, it still had a far larger control of the oceans by virtue of its merchant and naval fleets from its other territories (in America, Africa, and Asia — the Scandinavian Realm is not only in Europe). Don't forget, Lithuania would have been preoccupied too — and far more so than the Scandinavian Realm! Distance does indeed matter in this case. —Boreanesia 05:10, 22 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Well, Lithuania is a tiny country in the real world. In Bethysad, prior to Great War 2, it was a much larger country, which included also almost all lands of our world Belarus, parts of our world Ukraine and Poland. It was larger than it is in Bethysad now also (you can see map of Lithuania in the interwar (1918) at Jan's page here: http://www.geocities.com/wenedyk/ib/rtc_hist.html ). Probably it was quite similar to Scandinavia by population size I assume (if Scandinavia in Bethisad is as scarcely populated as it is in real world), Jan could tell more on this topic I guess. Lithuania would be preoccupied too, that's true. However, e.g. in real world Germany did not went to occuppy French Guyana even though France was fully occupied; it just had more serious business in Europe; similar happened in many other cases when far away and unimportant colonies were left intact even when the ruling country itself was occupied and was at war. The location of New Lithuania was strategically completely unimportant at war, the country had not many people - it would have been possible to take-over it, same as it would have been possible to take over Reunion or Syria for Germans, but it was not worth it when troops were needed at serious front. New Lithuania was not a threat, they did not organise any attacks, it was not worth all the ado. And as I said, there could have been some cooperation which would have made the existance of colony profitable for Scandinavians; e.g. if they would own the colony themselves, it would only cost lots of money to keep, but Lithuanians instead paid all that money to Scandinavians to provide transportation and such (that is one of possibilities about the estabilishment of colony). And any actions against such establishment would not be worth the required costs anyhow. If you like the snorist idea more (e.g. that locals turned into snorism more), it can be done maybe to some extent. Abdul-aziz 06:12, 22 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Regarding Lithuania's size, my point was rather Lithuania's lack of a significant maritime fleet and resources. You mentioned that it could be profitable for Scandinavian companies to build the Lithuanian colony. I agree. Keep in mind that only one Scandinavian company, the Kongelige Antarctiske Handelscompagnie, is allowed to conduct business within the Antarctic Dependency. If New Lithuania is outside of the Scandinavian territory, then there will certainly be other Scandinavian companies that would be interested.

As for the potential conflict with the Scandinavian Realm: as long as New Lithuania is not within the Scandinavian Realm's territory, and as long as it does not claim the entire continent, I don't see any war erupting.

But I'm still not entirely convinced that Lithuania would have been able to afford building two permanent settlements intended for thousands of people on Antarctica itself. Building the settlements is one thing. But the logistics involved to allow the building of two towns in Antarctica entirely from scratch, especially in the 1930s, would have been incredibly expensive! There were no building materials, no local workforce, and no infrastructure. Everything needed had to be shipped to the place. Let's not forget the climate! Shipping and construction would only have been possible during the extremely short summer months.

What about the Kerguelen Islands? To the best of my knowledge, it has not been claimed. While building on Kerguelen would also be a greenfield investment, at least you won't be hampered by the polar climate.

Boreanesia 08:39, 22 Sep 2005 (PDT)

As for ideas of Kazys Pakštas, which were in the real world too though in real world they did not succeeded to reach wide support, "turning the face to sea" was an important thing to preserve Lithuania; in real world he even suggested to move capital to Klaipėda, a city on the coast for that purpose. In Bethisad however Lithuania did not have Klaipėda at the time, so probably either Palanga or Šventosios Uostas was the main port, and according to my view Pakštas suggested to move capital there but this was seen as too drastic by the Lithuanian government and not approved. However, if his colonisation scheme was given a green light, I guess the navy would have been expanded somewhat; allthough I will agree that it of course wouldn't be very large, as then it would have costed very much and would have been completely unviable without many colonies, which Lithuania did not have at the time, and only single port. As for workers, one of major reasons why Antarctican colony was established was that under the times of disorders, rise of Belarussian nationalism, snorism, communism too maybe, the government wanted a place to send political opponents so they couldn't possibly be freed, ran away or take part in staging a revolution. Therefore, Antarctica was used as a penal colony (kinda similar as Soviets used some places in Siberia, work camp): ships full of people, mostly Slavs, were sent there to build the settlements. Needless to say, most of them did not come back; especially ones sent in first months, when Lithuania was totally not prepared for local conditions, etc. with time however Lithuania somewhat learned from mistakes and maybe hired some people, either Scandinavian or other nationalities, who had experience in that to control the work; still most of workers died. Later these conditions were used as propaganda against Lithuanians (at the time it was not fully known however and it is still disputable werether it happened due to lack of experience, or werether Lithuanian government actually wanted to most of them to die). Now, I don't know if Scandinavian companies would be allowed to get into such controversial affair as transporting political prisoners to penal colony, so this might have been done by Lithuanian navy, while in that case, as Lithuanian navy wasn't large, for things such as transportation of some materials, food, etc. Scandinavian companies could have been hired.

I agree however that it could be on Kerguellen Islands too however, I don't have anything against this idea (maybe it would be unlikely that Kerguellen Islands would have been unclaimed for all this time until 30s; but some story might be created about that, such as Lithuanians buying it (in reality, Pakštas actually tried to aquire land by buying it) or overtaking it and and then status quo would leave after the war; or it would really have been unclaimed until 30s due to bad conditions and it being a far away place). I will leave the final decition on the place of it to Jan I geuss as he knows the Bethisadian geography better than me and he is the ruler of Lithuania here after all, I guess I get too much into his affairs anyways lol. I have nothing against Kerguellen or such myself. Abdul-aziz 11:26, 22 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Well, I don't really have the time to write much now, but let's try.

You are right about the size of Lithuania in the Interwar period. I don't know exactly how many inhabitants it had, but probably some 8-10 million or so. Not that much, but enough for Lithuania not to be a tiny little nation. Of course, it was not a rich country, but there were quite a few extremely rich people among a population of generally very poor people. It must also have had a small middle class.

As for New Lithuania, it looks like we have three options now:

• On the Antarctic Peninsula. This poses us before the problem that it was already claimed by Scandinavia, which is, and was, one of the most powerful nations in the world, especially on the sea. I can't easily see an independent Lithuanian state appear on its territory, unless this state was supported for some reason by Scandinavian companies (who indeed might have had an interest here. After all, it was either thát or just snow and ice there) or by the Scandinavian government. The argument that Scandinavia was too involved in the War doesn't hold IMO: Scandinavia's involvement was pretty short after all, and after that it would quickly have cleaned up the Lithuanian mess in Antarctica. Neither do I believe that after the war so many countries would be interested in friendly relations with NL; what did the New Lithuanians, a nation of a couple of hundred or at most two thousand people, really have to offer to them? No, I can see only three countries supporting NL: Russia (in the hope to use it against the RTC some day); Lithuania (because after all these people are Lithuanians); and silently also Veneda (because it is a convenient way to get rid of the most recalcitrant elements among the Lithuanian nationalists).
• McMurdo. Let's assume that this part of Antarctica was/is in Russian hands. Like I said, there are many points on which the SNOR and the Lithuanian nationalists would agree: Russia wanted an independent Lithuanian nation state, and that's precisely what many nationalists would like to have, too. Some of course would regret the loss of huge Belarussian territories, but others would be more than happy to get rid of those Belarussian troublemakers. I have the feeling that this is not your favoured solution, but perhaps it would be worth to reconsider it. Russia had reason enough to support a small Lithuanian state on its territory, and would happily provide all the resources needed for establishing and maintaining it. There is of course one problem: Russia invaded Lithuania in 1939, and therefore a Russian-based NL can impossibly have been established before or shortly after that. The best time for that would be sometime between 1945 and 1950, I guess.
• On the Kerguellen Islands. No idea even where that is! :)

Regarding transport and resources: one thing to keep in mind is that there were quite a number of rich people in Lithuania. I'm sure some extremely rich freak could be found who would be prepared to finance the whole enterprise on his own. Especially if one city would be named after him. Besides, the state also played a significant role in the process, and I'm sure there were banks and companies that could have had their stake too (in return for certain favours of course). Now, Lithuania was of course not much of a seafaring nation. It could therefore have cooperated with Latvia and Estonia, two countries with a) more experience with sea-faring, and b) friendly relations with Scandinavia. Apart from that, I think part of the transport could have taken place through the air: air ships are much more common *there* than *here*, they are able to carry huge loads, and they are relatively cheap in their usage of fuel.

For the rest, don't worry about me being the "ruler" of Lithuania. In fact, I'm not: I'm the ruler of Veneda, and also the ruler of the RTC as a whole. I've been working a little bit with Lithuania, but I'm mostly concentrated on Veneda, Galicia and Volhynia anyway. I certainly wouldn't mind if somebody else with more specifically Lithuanian knowledge co-ruled Lithuania with me, and if you like to be that person, you are welcome. Until now, your contributions have been excellent. Padraic, how about those ceremonial robes and tricorn hats you ordered from our tailor last year? :)

--IJzeren Jan 13:13, 22 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Jan has summarized the various options and their problems quite well, and it seems to me that the best one is a Lithuanian purchase of the Kerguelen Islands. I suppose it was French like *here*?

I don't agree that airship travel would have made the colonization any easier in IB. The POD for airship technology in IB is, as I understand it, when airships continued to be developed after the Hindenberg incident. So in the 1930s, airships in IB would not yet have become flying bulk carriers. What's more is that the latitudes around the Antarctic are notoriously windy — not exactly ideal conditions for aerodromes.

FYI, Jan, Kerguelen is a subpolar archipelago in the southern Indian Ocean.

Boreanesia 14:23, 22 Sep 2005 (PDT)

(Note: This is reply to Jan's post, by the time I started writting there was no Boreanesias post yet; Boreansia answered some of the questions I raised here I guess). Kerguellen islands are actually French controlled uninhabitted islands in southern India Ocean; in relaity there are just some scientists there I believe and the islands are of several thousands square kilometers. As for Russian-based New Lithuania, I would see not much point in that, as Russians would be interested to keep nationalists in Lithuania to pressure the government; and as for snorist government-in-exile, it could be formed in Russia-proper, where it would be easier toa ct for it. I don't think nationalists would move there after war as there would be not much reason then; they would at first seek to regain Lithuania, and Antarctica is very far from Lithuania. While in the interwar, due to those ideas of emergency Lithuania and nationalists feeling themselves that they might need to run somewhere, also due to propaganda purposes, due to the need for penal colony to throw certain political opponents away (as situation was heated by then), (maybe also due to some Lithuanian geologist's believes that there is oil where New Lithuania would be established or such), the building of such colony was more likely, given that this was according to Pakštas's ideas of colonisation, liked by nationalists, and without Pakštas himself who would probably have not wanted such a colonisation (in real world, he was mostly interested in Africa and Central America). It might be so that some countries openly or secretly supported such idea of New Lithuania back then, but I don't think Russia would have been one of them back then. As for the place, I guess McMurdo is possible without the Russian explaination also; downside of Kerguilen is that due to it's relative smallness the initial plans to build many towns would probably need to be removed; although there is place there as well so I guess it can be changed if needed, only explaination on what stance of the islands was prior to the establishment of colony would need to be explained. The pros of Kerguellen is that it is not extremely far from Maasai, so it would have been easier for Lithuanians than in Antarctica from logistical side. The idea about naming some city or a geographical feature (such as McMurdo sound, one of Kerguellen islands and such, depending on place where the colony would be) after the rich person who would give money is good I think. Airships are a good idea too; probably they could move materials from closest inhabitted lands. I am not sure about operating of airships in very cold climate, but I havent ever heard that its impossible either. Some coopertion with Latvia and Estonia might have been done too, or with some other countries. I guess if Lithuania expanded navy somewhat, probably new ships would have been built in Latvia or Estonia where shipbuilding industry is more developed, or, more likely, Lithuania would have aquired old used ships from nearby countries. Not sure what you mean about hats and robes lol, that was not meant to me probably though. And as for rulership, I don't know how much time I will spend for contributions, but I might contribute some maybe.

Abdul-aziz 14:32, 22 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Okay, so let's discard the Russia option, then. Given Marc's comment, which I agree with, Kerguellen is not an option either. So, what we are stuck with is: either the Antarctic Peninsula, in which case some kind of dealing must be made with Scandinavia; some other, unclaimed part of Antarctica; or one of the islands surrounding the continent.

I just made a little map of Antarctica, showing which sections have been claimed. Only the Scandinavian and the Chinese sections are QSS. More about that map on Talk:Antarctica. Anyway, for New Lithuania I can see the following solutions:

• Somewhere on the coast of East Antarctica, between 45° and 110°E. Kristian can probably tell us what the climatological conditions are in those parts.
• Somewhere between 135°W and 160°E. I have provisorically claimed this for Russia. However, I don't think Russia ever made an attempt to really "colonise" it, nor even to control it very firmly. I could very well be that it hardly noticed the Lithuanians landing in McMurdo, and that after the War it tolerated Free Lithuania for political reasons. Hey, perhaps it used the Lithuanians landing in McMurdo as an invasion, to which it "replied" by invading Lithuania proper in September 1939!
• There are a few very tiny islands near Kerguelen. I doubt if there are of any interest to you. As far as I could see, however, the South Orkney Islands have not be claimed by Kristian, and as far as I can tell, the islands are better suited for human habitation than the mainland. As for the penal colony idea, one of the smaller islands could serve that function. See for example http://www.cep.aq/apa/aspa/maps/ASPAMap2.html .
• There is still the Scandinavian Peninsula formula, but given the nature of the nationalist's endeavours, this possibility strikes me as less and less likely. Even if Lithuania cooperated closely with Latvia and Estonia, and even if Lithuania had the resources to finance the whole enterprise, and even if some Scandinavian companies were involved, I still can't see Scandinavian tolerating a New Lithuanian statelet on its territory (except perhaps for the lease scenario). Also keep in mind that the Scandinavians are pretty close to the RTC!

As for the tricorn hats and robes, see here. Cheers, IJzeren Jan 00:19, 23 Sep 2005 (PDT)

I'm afraid the South Orkney Islands lies within the Scandinavian claim between 135°W and 45°E. As for Kerguelen, I still think its viable. See my comments below. France has absolutely nothing to complain about. Boreanesia 02:40, 23 Sep 2005 (PDT)

I guess New Lithuania can be in a place of Molodezhnaya base then (it is outside Scandinavian claim as it's coordinates are over 45,00, climatological condions here: http://south.aari.nw.ru/data/data.asp?lang=0&station=4 ) or somewhere near there; it would also be logical as it is almost directly to the south from Lithuania-proper. As for Russian and Australasian claims however, I am not sure why you chosen these exact areas. They can be changed somewhat I guess, but yes, probably New Lithuania would be more logical between 45 and 60 than in McMurdo. As for unclaimed land by the way, I understand that you don't like the slicing, but I guess at least in our times, XXI age, all land would be claimed anyways, even uninhabittable one; unless of course some treaty was signed which would have left some land unincorporated. I believe islands would be claimed by the power who claims respective part of Antarctica near it; if they were not claimed before by some other power.Abdul-aziz 03:03, 23 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Okay then, the region between 45°E and 60°E it is! As for the pizza slices: I think we can safely state that the South Pole itself is in Scandinavian hands. That automatically makes the slicing less probable. And as for your suggestion that all lands would be claimed by now: not necessarily in IB. I could well imagine that countries making an attempt to take such a territory would be stopped by the others, and that there is some kind of rough consensus to leave those places alone (politically, at least; research stations are an entirely different matter). As far as I know, there are also unincorporated territories in North America. The question is: of what use are the inland territories anyway? The way I see it, the map should ideally consist of fading colours instead of slices.

Why I chose the places I chose for Russia and Australasia? Simply: I connected stations (Russia with Leningradskaya, and Casey with Mawson). Since we hadn't made any concrete decision about the places, I thought that would be a reasonable solution. Besides, the Australasian realm is safely within *here*'s Australian claim, while the Russian realm can be easily reached from Russia's eastern shores (Primorye). --IJzeren Jan 03:28, 23 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Ok then, it will be there. As for unincorporated territories in America, I think it rather means that it is part of North American League, but isn't incorporated into any states (similar status to the territory of Australia (such as uninhabitted territories like Coral Islands) or territory of Canada maybe; if not colonists there would be local amerindians anyway. But, yes, I understand what you mean. Abdul-aziz 05:04, 23 Sep 2005 (PDT)

About Kerguelen

Granted I'm not france's caretaker (and the one who is hasn't showed up for meeting in a while) but I feel I must object.

It had been assumed in the past that france's history up to WWII was more of less the same as here based on Christophe comments. Unfortunaly, a lot of later developtment seen to have slowly striped away some of its oversea posession which *here* were not lost. Obviously, Hayti, louisiana and New Francy's counterpart were lost *here* so I'm not talking about these. However considering france seen to have never had any asian colonies and Joe's map (which I objected back when) striped it of its oceanian holding, I'm afraid that if we keep retroactively giving away part of it to newcomers, there will be nothing left !

How about a contribution from a different empire this time ?

Maybe the Malvinas, would avoid a conflict (or make it worst come to think of it....scratch that....)--Marc Pasquin 17:58, 22 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Granted. The Kerguelen Islands are French... not much of a colony, but there you are!

I agree with you that France shouldn't be stuck with Algeria, Guinée and Guyane only. And even more that it shouldn't be due to France not having an active caretaker at the moment. But keep in mind that the colonial situation in IB is very different: huge chunks of land were not colonised at all (basically, most of Asia), and IB has some colonial powers that have little or not imporance in OTL: mainly Scandinavia, which IMO is pretty well-founded, and also Dalmatia and China. Other colonial powers, like the FK countries, France and the Batavian Kingdom, are worse off than *here*. But like I said, it should remain within acceptable limits, and therefore I agree that France should be compensated somehow for its losses.

The Malvinas is not an option though: the Samonios Islands, as they are called *there*, are safely under the rule of Armorica.

BTW, have you considered the possibility of some French settlement in Australasia? I know virtually nothing of the history of those regions, but if France couldn't get through to the Pacific, maybe it could have colonised some part of it. After all, there were strong historical connections between France and Scotland (Bonnie Prince Charley and all that).

Cheers, IJzeren Jan 23:40, 22 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Hold your horses everyone! France does have several Asian colonies: Saigon, Chandernagor, Pondichéry, Kârikal, Mahé, and Yanam.

These would have made a lot more money than Kerguelen, so I see no reason why France should not sell Kerguelen when the opportunity arises. Besides, unlike *here*, France still has these Asian colonies. Boreanesia 02:29, 23 Sep 2005 (PDT)

This discussion is not relevant anymore, since it looks like it's going to be on the Eastern shore of Antarctica after all. So Kerguelen can safely stay French. And I've also "given" France a little cut of Antarctica itself. --IJzeren Jan 03:31, 23 Sep 2005 (PDT)

re: asia. I distinctively remember someone mentioning that there were no european colonies in asia (the reason I remember was because of the absence of french indochina), did someone decide to change that ? I do know that some of mentioned a colonial *past* (life for the philippines) but I can't recal current ones.

As to the selling of kerguelen, that wasn't realy my point. I just think we should make other empire contribute a bit instead of always striping the ones whose caretaker is absent or non-existent.--Marc Pasquin 12:02, 23 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Don't worry about that. Striping empires that don't have a caretaker is not our policy; me and others are here all the time to prevent that from happening. Likewise, unimportant countries that dó have a caretaker shouldn't be made more important than they actually are, for exactly the same reason. And a weak France would not fit in our universum in any way! --IJzeren Jan 12:12, 23 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Adding Commentary

As a bit of a note, instead of adding in commentary explaining the differences between *there* and *here*, i'd add them into the discussion here, otherwise it tends in my opinion to ruin the "realism" of the article. -- Doobieous

Ok, you can do that.Abdul-aziz 22:57, 26 Sep 2005 (PDT)