Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread

Crazy Boris

Banned
USA Alt states.png


Made this the other day: An Alternate USA with16 proposed states added.
 
all-tribes.png

murdockmapbound.png

Africa_comp.jpg

HOW+DO+THE+DIFFERENCES+BETWEEN+THE+TWO+MAPS+CAUSE+A+PROBLEM.jpg


I have some doubts about the accuracy & relevancy of these maps, but this was literally just the results of some quick google searches. It shouldn't be too hard for someone to model internal borders off of these.
It always leaves me puzzled as these "ethnic maps" of Africa often mismatch with each other ...
 
It always leaves me puzzled as these "ethnic maps" of Africa often mismatch with each other ...

It's not necessarily the data that's inaccurate, it's the interpretation of the data that is subject to whoever is making the map.
"What does ethnicity mean to you" can get you a lot of different answers, even when we are all given the same demographic information.
 

Crazy Boris

Banned
It always leaves me puzzled as these "ethnic maps" of Africa often mismatch with each other ...

I just noticed that they all seem to split the Somalis into the different clans. That’s kind of odd, since I’ve never seen them described as separate ethnicities, I can’t help but wonder if they just split the Somalis up just to have more areas on the map.
 
It always leaves me puzzled as these "ethnic maps" of Africa often mismatch with each other ...
Its because "Africa is unstable because they're barbarians who were forced together and began killing each other the minute they were freed from enlightened European rule" is a really easy way to go and deny that Europe is responsible for a lot of problems in modern Africa, and a lot of these maps are rather artificial and among other things deny that these groups are often nomadic and borders are subject to change.
 
Its because "Africa is unstable because they're barbarians who were forced together and began killing each other the minute they were freed from enlightened European rule" is a really easy way to go and deny that Europe is responsible for a lot of problems in modern Africa, and a lot of these maps are rather artificial and among other things deny that these groups are often nomadic and borders are subject to change.
The argument that most often gets made in regards to these sorts of maps, though, is that "the borders are artificial", and that they don't reflect Africa's ethnic diversity like Europe's do. Never mind that the creation of the European nation-states involved the artificial creation of a pan-ethnic identity followed by the subsumption/annihilation of competing nationalisms; if we were to draw a pre-Westphalia map of all of Europe's 'ethnic groups', it could be nearly as chaotic.
 
The argument that most often gets made in regards to these sorts of maps, though, is that "the borders are artificial", and that they don't reflect Africa's ethnic diversity like Europe's do. Never mind that the creation of the European nation-states involved the artificial creation of a pan-ethnic identity followed by the subsumption/annihilation of competing nationalisms; if we were to draw a pre-Westphalia map of all of Europe's 'ethnic groups', it could be nearly as chaotic.
This, this so much. It happens other places too; the amount of cultures that were subsequently annihilated when someone decided that to be a Southerner meant, well, what all the racists say it means is boggling. In a way, the fact that African smaller languages and identities continue to this day as opposed to how in Europe these languages and regional traditions were annihilated is a good thing.
 
In the world of strange news, while looking for political information of a completely different nature, I came across this nugget in the New York Times, where apparently Norway was offered the Mandate over Armenia and, should they refuse, Canada was prepared to take their place. As of this moment though I'm not sure what became of Canada's efforts in this regard.
 
In the world of strange news, while looking for political information of a completely different nature, I came across this nugget in the New York Times, where apparently Norway was offered the Mandate over Armenia and, should they refuse, Canada was prepared to take their place. As of this moment though I'm not sure what became of Canada's efforts in this regard.
I mean, even the article says that Armenia would basically become a British colony/protectorate in this situation.
 
I mean, even the article says that Armenia would basically become a British colony/protectorate in this situation.
Such idea was there from Berlin congress if not earlier (by conveention of Cyprus all of asian Ottoman empire became "protectorate")
 
I mean, even the article says that Armenia would basically become a British colony/protectorate in this situation.
It depends on how you'd interpret it. While Canada was a Dominion, they are the ones that'd have a final say on matters in Armenia, not the British. Certainly there'd be extensive cooperation between the two on all matters, but the important point would be that the UK could not act unilaterally in Armenia; they'd need consent from Ottawa first.

Anyway, I find the concept of Norwegian Armenia a tad more interesting, if naturally unlikely. :coldsweat:
 
german_territorial_war_claims_in_the_west_by_arminius1871_dbqjnsm-pre.jpg


In light blue are the territories an agitation group called the Pan-German League was demanding be annexed should Germany emerge victorious in WW1: All of Belgium, Luxembourg and northeastern France.

As some lads helpfully pointed out for me, it was more likely that the Germans would have been more modest. At most they would have annexed Luxembourg, the French border regions in dark blue, and eastern Belgium to up to Namur and Liege, shown in dark criss-crossy.
 
View attachment 456871

In light blue are the territories an agitation group called the Pan-German League was demanding be annexed should Germany emerge victorious in WW1: All of Belgium, Luxembourg and northeastern France.

As some lads helpfully pointed out for me, it was more likely that the Germans would have been more modest. At most they would have annexed Luxembourg, the French border regions in dark blue, and eastern Belgium to up to Namur and Liege, shown in dark criss-crossy.
This is great, been looking for something like this for ages

also: interesting how the more extreme lot wanted virtually the exact same borders the Nazis would draw up 25 years later
 
Did y'all know that in 1943, aka when World War II was still going on, the British considered giving self-government to northern (aka modern) Sudan, while keeping the southern portion a British colony?

If that plan had gone ahead, there might've been a slightly earlier end to the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan and a more stable South Sudan.

Anyway, here's a a worlda patch for that proposal, based on approximations of the provincial borders of the late colonial period (thanks, that one Italian atlas I found at DavidRumsey.com!). Also apparently the modern border between the Sudans goes back to at least the 1940s...

View attachment 455457

I wonder if that plan might have also seen northern Sudan unify with Egypt fully between the 1940s and 1950s
 
Top