Map Thread IV

[Maharajah]

Originally Posted by Roberto

Just a random map I made by stitching together various pieces of maps from my base map collection...

Oh my. This couldn't...well, something odd's going on in North America.

[Qazaq2007]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

There's North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota..

Neither of which exist as "Carolina" or "Dakota".

A single Dakota actually did exist IOTL, as a territory until it was split into two, and became states in 1889.

[Maharajah]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

There's North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota..

Neither of which exist as "Carolina" or "Dakota".

And Carolina was a colony until it was split in two.

[Imajin]

Inspired by the uber-Virginia thread...

A map of the eastern part of North America, following the Virginia-Massachusetts War and the dissolution of the United States of America, but before the Anglo-Virginian War. The red boundary is the border of the Confederacy of America.

[VulcanTrekkie45]

The electoral districts of New Hampshire.

[Zyzzyva]

Originally Posted by Imajin

Inspired by the uber-Virginia thread...

A map of the eastern part of North America, following the Virginia-Massachusetts War and the dissolution of the United States of America, but before the Anglo-Virginian War. The red boundary is the border of the Confederacy of America.

Upper Canada is missing.

[LorienTheYounger]

Originally Posted by Imajin

Inspired by the uber-Virginia thread...

A map of the eastern part of North America, following the Virginia-Massachusetts War and the dissolution of the United States of America, but before the Anglo-Virginian War. The red boundary is the border of the Confederacy of America.

You have two Lower Canadas there.

[Susano]

Originally Posted by Nekromans

Also, Burgenland appears to be Austrian, when it wasn't so until after WWI IOTL - part of Wilson's attempts to outdo Thermo in Wacky Ethnic Dispersals.

Not really. Burgenland was coherently ethnically settled, and no "ethnic spaghetti" In fact, that one Hungarian territorial "bay" reaching into Burgenland was German settled as well, but Austria and Hungary had secretly reached a deal to fix the referenda so as to not create unnecessary tension between them.

Originally Posted by Zyzzyva

I know you were. I'm still wondering about the Corridor.

...And do you know where Susano's map is? It sounds cool.

http://alternatehistory.com/Discussi...3&d=1199985967
Yes, the Hungarian-Romanian border is odd - basically, as during WW2 IOTL Hungary got North Transylvania, but with a thinner landbridge. It still, it doesnt run along ethnic lines and still heavily favours the Hungarians, Szeklers and Transylvania Germans (who only have same small enclaves in the landbridge, which were all tried to be included), but the Romanians got a better deal as IOTL during WW2. And the borders in East Transylvania are more or less along ethnic lines, and Hungary also got the Banat. And yes one Romanian exclave, but thats only because the USSR has occupied Moldavia, it wasnt planned by the border-drawers...

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

Weren't Kashubians counted as Germans in..well, Germany, and Poles in Poland?

Yes. But even I have to admit that even discounting Kashubians there was a Polish pluralrity or even majority in West Prussia. The interbellum borders werent perfect - Bromberg and the land between it and the IOTL German (mainland) border was mostly German settled, but going roughly by ethnic lines, Poland would get the corridor to the sea, and Germany not get the corridor to East Prussia...

[Zyzzyva]

Originally Posted by Susano

Not really. Burgenland was coherently ethnically settled, and no "ethnic spaghetti" In fact, that one Hungarian territorial "bay" reaching into Burgenland was German settled as well, but Austria and Hungary had secretly reached a deal to fix the referenda so as to not create unnecessary tension between them.


http://alternatehistory.com/Discussi...3&d=1199985967
Yes, the Hungarian-Romanian border is odd - basically, as during WW2 IOTL Hungary got North Transylvania, but with a thinner landbridge. It still, it doesnt run along ethnic lines and still heavily favours the Hungarians, Szeklers and Transylvania Germans (who only have same small enclaves in the landbridge, which were all tried to be included), but the Romanians got a better deal as IOTL during WW2. And the borders in East Transylvania are more or less along ethnic lines, and Hungary also got the Banat. And yes one Romanian exclave, but thats only because the USSR has occupied Moldavia, it wasnt planned by the border-drawers...

All credit to Susano.



Although the crazy Anchluss-Sudetenland-Screw-you-to-Poland strikes me as a bad way of keeping the peace.

Yes. But even I have to admit that even discounting Kashubians there was a Polish pluralrity or even majority in West Prussia. The interbellum borders werent perfect - Bromberg and the land between it and the IOTL German (mainland) border was mostly German settled, but going roughly by ethnic lines, Poland would get the corridor to the sea, and Germany not get the corridor to East Prussia...

So, basically, they put the corridor where they did because it was already inhabited by Poles?

[Susano]

Originally Posted by Zyzzyva

So, basically, they put the corridor where they did because it was already inhabited by Poles?

It seems the priamry intention was to give the Poles a sea access - thats a demand thats even in Wilsons hypocritical points. And it needs to be said that over 200k Germans did, ah, leave the area after it became Polish, and despite what Hurgan&Co. says, practcially none of them were evil German settlers who had been planted there to root out Polishness. (The Treaty of Versaille dgranted Polish citizenship to all Germans in the ceded territroy if they had been there prior to 1908. 1908 some law was passed that did aim at planned German settlement, but is was rarely invoked and only some hundreds of Germany did settle there afterwards. So going by the divide that even Poland regogniced indeed nearly none were "settlers").

But yes, even before WW1 there was a Polish plurality.

Although the crazy Anchluss-Sudetenland-Screw-you-to-Poland strikes me as a bad way of keeping the peace

You forgot Northern South Tyrole
But ah, why? Sudetenland, Austria and Northern South Tyrole at elast were ethnic German and wanetd to be part of Germany. I reject the notion that trying to reclaim them would be somehow crazy or overly and needlessly aggressive, but thats a general political debatte of course.

As for the Eastern Territories, they were recoved right after the PoD (the Battle of the Vistula going the Soviets way, hence the filename), so there was nothing overly aggressive about it.

My conception was that the other lands were acquired while Great Britain and France were busy fighting a war against teh Soviets in China and Persia - and yes, Germany exploiting the fact to reach Anschluss and then stabbing their Czechoslovak semi-allies (Czechoslovakia got the territroy they contested with Poland after Polands fall) in the back will probably do nothing good for German reputation....

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by Zyzzyva

Er, yeah, I know, I had changed it.

...And, probably related: why is it that so many pre-1945 ethnic maps (this being an example, but far from the only one) show the dispersal of Poles as being oh-so-suspiciously-close to the borders of the Corridor?

That's nothing. Look at Anatolia. Anywhere where any Greeks live are marked Greek - in reality they were small minorities everywhere except in the area of Izmir, where they were a large minority, albeit still a minority (about a third in the district of the city, but about a sixth in the province it's in).

[Susano]

Originally Posted by Abdul Hadi Pasha

That's nothing. Look at Anatolia. Anywhere where any Greeks live are marked Greek - in reality they were small minorities everywhere except in the area of Izmir, where they were a large minority, albeit still a minority (about a third in the district of the city, but about a sixth in the province it's in).

Ah, didnt see that Post by Zyz. Yes, thats generally not a good ethnic map.
Besides the fact that the map does seem toe xagerate Greek settlement territories, the German enclaves inw hat after WW1 will be Romania are in the wrong places, and as Ive said earlier the German-Hungarian ethnic border was actually east of the Austrian-Hungarian internal border, not west of it. And there werent as many Poles in Lower Silesia...

Better is
http://www.anesi.com/rmap1.jpg
or even better
http://echo.ec.funpic.de/webpages/De...Mundarten_.jpg
Though both (especially the first) do favour the Germans in West Prussia too much, admittedly.

[Thande]

The confusing part about that map - and I actually own the book it's in - it that it's not an ethnic map.

Yes, read that again. The labels on it imply it's an ethnic map, but a casual look will reveal that what it actually indicates is language. And it makes a lot more sense to highlight minority languages with spots than minority ethnicities, to clarify the reasons behind AHP's rant.

The real giveaway is the British Isles - the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish are all the same colour, because they all have the same dominant language (English), even though they're different ethnicities.

This may be the result of one of those daft postmodern "language IS race!!" things from the 70s, given that that's when that map was first published IIRC.

[Susano]

Uh, I always assume that ethnic maps show language. The two Ive posted are lingual, too, and I know that at least the latter was made in pre-WW1 Germany, so no 70s crazyness. And really, what else to show?

I mean, okay, the situation in Great britain is special, but on continental Europe it is about the same. And I think AHP would indeed... be upset about the notion that Greek language as day to day language would be so widespread. If at all, many "ethnic" Greeks were using the Turkish language, and not the other way round!

So in short, to counter your bold script, it IS an ethnic map.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Susano

Uh, I always assume that ethnic maps show language. The two Ive posted are lingual, too, and I know that at least the latter was made in pre-WW1 Germany, so no 70s crazyness. And really, what else to show?

I mean, okay, the situation in Great britain is special, but on continental Europe it is about the same. And I think AHP would indeed... be upset about the notion that Greek language as day to day language would be so widespread. If at all, many "ethnic" Greeks were using the Turkish language, and not the other way round!

So in short, to counter your bold script, it IS an ethnic map.

I think we're in one of those Anglo-Saxons vs Europe things here. I realise 'language is race' is a more common attitude on the continent - but here and especially in America, where everyone speaks English regardless of ethnicity, the definitions are pretty much wholly detached.

[Susano]

Well, considering that we did talk about continental european affairs
Btw, Im sure thats what you meant: Anglo-Saxon vs continental Europe

of course, even on the continent it wasnt always clearcut. In the Empires that broke up during or before WW1, the Ottoman and Russian Empries especially language often did not fit to national affiliation in the breakup, as Russian and Turkish were quite widely spread... but still largely ethnicity as I understand it refers to culture (inclusive and particularily even language) and NOT race (that is, blood descant).

[Magnificate]

In my experience, and I do specialize in drawing interwar Poland maps , it's next to impossible to determinate which demographic or ethnic map of the period is accurate. Sure, with cross-referencing you are able to spot major inconsistencies, but the issues of demography in Eastern Europe and Balkans were unsolvable in the period.

Originally Posted by Susano

Better is
http://www.anesi.com/rmap1.jpg
or even better
http://echo.ec.funpic.de/webpages/De...Mundarten_.jpg

Yes, I know these map. They are basically good, but neglect Poles east of Curzon line in Kresy and Wilno regions.

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by Magnificate

In my experience, and I do specialize in drawing interwar Poland maps , it's next to impossible to determinate which demographic or ethnic map of the period is accurate. Sure, with cross-referencing you are able to spot major inconsistencies, but the issues of demography in Eastern Europe and Balkans were unsolvable in the period.


Yes, I know these map. They are basically good, but neglect Poles east of Curzon line in Kresy and Wilno regions.

There's always the tried & true method of "I have more guns than you, this land is mine" method of determining borders. I find that tends to work really well until a bunch of weaker powers usurp a larger one, and the larger one tends to want to rape the piss out of the weaker ones 20 years down the line.

[Susano]

Oh, yes, now you mention it, that "Vilnius Ethnic Corridor" so to say sticking out of the Polish main settlement area is indeed missing. Might be because its such an early version - as said, 19th century. I think (I think - its the same colours and style and all) it must come from the same historical atlas I have (just as said a very early version) in which that "corridor" is drawn in...

Btw, what about Lemberg/Lwow/Lviv? That map shows it as a relatively small ethnic exclave, but Ive seen other maps showing a far larger region around it as Polish... what would you say is more accurate?

Btw, also a helpful map in that regard:
Demographic Ethnic map of West Prussia and Posen
Which, if one looks at all the Polish-majority diystricts where all cities are of German majority shows the main problem in West Prussia, that often there wer eno clear lingual borders, but that it was Germans in the cities and Poles in the rural areas...

[Zyzzyva]

Yeah, AHP, I know that map sucks, especially for Anatolia. (About thirty seconds after posting I thought, well, AHP's going to have a fit.) But it was the first one I found with the Poles in the Corridor, and I've seen that a bunch elsewhere, even in less unabashedly Byzantine-revanchist maps.

@ Susano: Turning Germany from the foremost state in Europe to a can-beat-any-three-other-states-in-combination hyperpower doesn't strike you as a bad way of keeping the peace?