Talk:Atlantropa

A few questions

 * Firstly I've been looking at my Encarta atlas and it seems to me that there wouldn't really be that much extra land in the Mediterranean if the sea level was dropped by 200 meters. I mean it would create some large tracks of new land, but that Vast majority of the Water would still be there (because most of the sea is far deeper that 200 m). Also, wouldn't the new ground be just Salt-logged Sand? Not very usable for anything really.
 * Secondly if there were a large loss of water from the Med, wouldn't that extra water end up in the rest of the world's oceans? Meaning that the rest of the world would have global flooding, so the actual land area gained would be zero?
 * Oh and thirdly, wouldn't this have terrible consequences for all the coastal cities on the Med, they would all be left high and dry, no? (so it's good bye to all ports and fishing industries, until new ones could be built). Not to mention the grave Environmental consequences. --Hibernian 04:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

- You are quite correct in your observations. This vision was a short sighted one. Too focused on the idealist solution to see the many inherant flaws. Anachronos 07:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * it is estimated that it would´ve created new land the size of France and Belgium together.--Tresckow 03:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the plan was to put three massive lakes in african deserts to make up for the water, not pumping all of it into the other oceans. >-{ Brandonrush }-<


 * Whether the land gained in the Med is lost elsewhere in the world depends on several factors, including the slopes along the shores. I guess the atmosphere would be drier (on average), since less water would be evaporating from the Med – which means that with other factors equal the total land area would be a net loss.  &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a rough estimate as to how much power such a dam would generate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.4.97 (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I´ve heard two numbers: 30GW, and 90GW (probably for all dams combined). Both numbers are not worth the huge effort IMHO. 176.2.81.172 (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ancient precedent
Is it worth mentioning in the article that Gibraltar was effectively "dammed" by the lowering of sea level during the Ice Ages? &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

IMnHO - "This is stupid"
Why is the article even pretending that this might have been seriously considered at any point? Absolutely no-one in any position of actual influence would do something as dumb as something that would close off the Suez and force shipping to go all the way around Africa again. Especially not the Mediterranean countries themselves who would suddenly find themselves landlocked, with the exception of one big lake that only they would have access to. To say nothing of the risks for anyone who would choose to live in the reclaimed lands if the dam ever broke. There are so many fundamental, unsolvable flaws with this sort of thing that it would never have been taken seriously by anyone. YF-23 (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you can find reputable sources which state the above, you can add these assessments to the article under a section entitled Criticism. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 12:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I don't have sources for it, but I'm not entirely sure what you want me to source. Surely there's no source needed to discern that the Suez canal would have to close if the Mediterranean was going to lose 200 meters of water height, or to discern that shipping would receive a tremendous blow if ships had to sail around Africa again. To clarify, my issue is that the article's written in such a way as to imply that the Atlantropa project was taken at some points seriously, for instance this paragraph seems to suggest (though doesn't outright state) that the Allies might have considered it: "After the Second World War, interest was piqued again as the Western Allies sought to create closer bonds with Africa and combat communism, but the invention of nuclear power, the cost of rebuilding, and the end of colonialism left Atlantropa technologically unnecessary and politically unfeasible, although the Atlantropa Institute remained in existence until 1960.[11]" In addition to my criticism on how the article is written, the reference provided in that section does not cover the claim that "after the Second World War, interest was piqued again as the Western Allies sought to create closer bonds with Africa and combat communism". YF-23 (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If a statement is controversial and not sourced, remove it. The same principle applies to any statements added by you. Remember, Wikipedia is not about what you know to be true, but about what you can show to be verifiable via reliable sources. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 14:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I just point out that I believe the idea was not to cut the Med off from the rest of the oceans for shipping, because there would be some sort of giant locks or canal system for ships going from the Atlantic pass the Gibraltar dam and the Sicilian one and then they could go through the extended Suez canal. Not that I think this idea is sane in any way, but they did at least think about that issue. --Hibernian (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering it was a german project I would assume there was at least one foolhardy leader to do as you ask. Since this would imply the gain of world dominance and a complete redistribution of all wealth a.s.o. towards that certain country it rather seems very unlikely to fullfill any Atlantropa-project, reshaping the mediterranean. The whole plan fits perfectly into its time and the same level of dilusion gave other great projects a go - we know that now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.107.62 (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2016

 * ❌, edit request filer has been indefinitely blocked. Altamel (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌, edit request filer has been indefinitely blocked. Altamel (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing impact
Shouldn't there be some mention of this idea's ecological impact? I would imagine that blocking the Staight of Gibralter would have serious effects on Mediteranean sea and coastal life... 2603:8080:5702:7883:E0FB:BA41:E1D9:182B (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Pop Culture
So I'm sure that a Philip K Dick novel and Amazon series is notable enough to be included, and I've attempted to edit the contribution which added the reference to it to be more neutral and professionally worded, as well as at least somewhat cited. But is an unofficial mod for a video game, without even any indication of how popular the mod is, how many people play it, or any citation to any articles about the mod, really notable enough to be included? It seems more like advertising. Rckelly12 (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, this mod 'TNO' is/was popular among circles of people who played the video game Hearts of Iron 4, and other alternative history online communities. This caused a lot of disruptive behaviour by fans of the mod, particularly here on Wikipedia, by people editing articles about things or people in the mod to include 'it was in the mod TNO' or just straight-up vandalism. The creators of the mod have addressed their community multiple times to attempt to put a stop this behaviour but it still happens regardless. I wouldn't say it is explicitly advertising, more annoying fan culture but is nonetheless non-constructive. Tamptonato (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I should also add that the reason why this article has had a lot of disruptive editing is because the Atlantropa project is a major plot point in the alternate history setting of the mod. Tamptonato (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Niger or Kongo
"On the Congo River below its Kasai River tributary to refill the Chad basin around Lake Chad to provide fresh water to irrigate the Sahara and create a shipping lane to the interior of Africa." Dam on Kongo river would affect Kongo basin, not Lake Chad. To help lake Chad it needs to be Niger river. 94.254.174.3 (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You may be correct. However, I wonder if the overambitious proposal was to actually force the entire Congo River to turn sharply north just before it reaches Kinshasa, diverting its flow rather than just building a dam, sending all that water in a completely different direction, to try to change the basin boundaries ...
 * In this kind of proposal, making water flow uphill is all in a day's work. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Africans
I guess it's (sadly) right, to assume that none of the people who were promoting this idea asked any Africans what they thought of it? TooManyFingers (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)