Great work. I think this (and the find by @oofo) could come in very handy for some persons writing scenarios where Hungary negotiates or regains some territory from Romania and/or Czechoslovakia without having to use the OTL 1938-1944 border changes.
Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread
- Thread starter Beedok
- Start date
Great work. I think this (and the find by @oofo) could come in very handy for some persons writing scenarios where Hungary negotiates or regains some territory from Romania and/or Czechoslovakia without having to use the OTL 1938-1944 border changes.
Well i've listed my own findings, now what exactly is their extent?, It's hard to find
For Farab,
This 1926 (post-first census, so uzbekisation was already ongoing) ethnic map (high res ; divisions only) has the extent of the Farab district , which is indeed shown as Uzbek majority it's rather small, and the region between it and the border is Turkmen-majority.
For Osh and Jalalabad, I don't have very accurate maps, but this particular map has the extent of the 1927 Jalal-abad and Osh districts
This one (https://www.foto.kg/maps/page,1,4,426-kirgizskaya-ssr-1963-g.html)
For Dasoguz I haven't found contemporary ethnic maps, but this map shows the reported extent of Uzbek at the time
Division of the Kazakh ASSR are harder to find, https://maps.southklad.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2301&sid=a3a15d31584f20c9d2f6dfc4c0256e0b this supposedly has the turkestan SSR era divisions, but I'd have to order it, which is quite hard right now, I found low res divisions of the Kirghiz ASSR in the mid 1920s there, it's hard to read but can give an idea of what a larger uzbek claim would look like
I also found this ethnic map (high res) based on a 1917 survey, probably one which this was argued over, with the volost of samarkhand oblast, this can be useful to map the kazakh claim and the kazakh-uzbek ethnic border in Samarkhand oblast, I've yet to find one for Tashkent Oblast
In the end this is roughly the map of Uzbekistan today had they gotten all their claims in 1924, I striped the parts that may have been claimed but where I can't find, also with that little edge of karakalpakstan they lost during the transfer from kazakhstan
There's potential for more, bu tthis will require a POD before the national delimitation, a Uzbek-dominated Turkestan SSR is perfectly possible after all, and a federal (rearranged) turkestan SSR was even proposed!
Last edited:
Just some South Tyrol stuff:
This map shows several partition proposals by the Research Department at the US Foreign Office and one Austrian proposal for South Tyrol after WW2. In each of these proposals the district of Cavalese in the province of Trento is marked because Austria also claimed it and requested it to be included in a plebiscite area together with the rest of the province of Bolzano, but none of these partition proposals would entail ceding it to Austria.
The first proposal would see the province of Bolzano returned to Austria, excluding the Ladin areas in the southeast and the southern tip of the Etschtal/Val d'Adige.
The second proposal is an expansion of the first, adding the town of Bozen/Bolzano to the territory to be retained by Italy and thus linking the southern Etschtal with the Ladin-speaking areas of the province.
The third proposal would've extended Italian control over the Etschtal even further.
The fourth proposal is an Austrian proposal to gain only the areas of the Pustertal, as well as the towns of Brixen and Sterzing, to Austria in order to connect the two Austrian portions of Tyrol with each other. Note how the fourth proposal would leave Austria with a small area that has a Ladin population.
The British meanwhile supported the idea of a plebiscite and in a 1946 House of Commons debate Sir Douglas Savory, member of parliament for the Queen's University of Belfast, stated:
"But it is not merely a question of the Pustertal, the valley which carries the railway to East Tyrol. It is a question of these three historic valleys—the Upper Etch, which the Italians call the Adige, the Eisack, which the Italians call the Isacco, and the Rienz. There is no claim put forward [...] for the Trentino, which is admitted to be Italian speaking. The point is that we want to restore the old historic frontier of Salurn, the linguistic boundary on the River Etch near the pass which is called the Salurner Klause—that is to say, the mountain pass of Salurn. The borderline which runs across the Brenner is not an ethnographic, and it is barely a strategic, frontier. The linguistic border coincides with the real strategic boundary—it is a magnificent boundary—which runs across the Ortler Mountain which is over 11,000 feet up, to the Marmolata over 10,000 feet. It is not only a borderline, but it is much more suitable for defence than the longer Brenner frontier [...]"
While that proposal is vague enough, it roughly equates to either the entire province of Bolzano or roughly speaking the first proposal by the US Foreign Office (possibly excluding the Ladin areas ceded to Italy).
Another member of parliament, Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, stated meanwhile in that session this about the negotiations about the original boundary post-WW1:
"Wilson proposed to put into Italy Merano, Bolzano, down the Pusterthal and right down to Albona in Venezia Giulia. That was the Wilson line, but after his discussions and at a later date—although he acknowledged, as I understand, that he regretted it—he did include the Brenner." This mirrors roughly proposal #4, and is described in more detail in an article written by one Charles Seymour in The Virginia Quarterly Review (Vol. 38, No. 4), where he describes "a line running between the linguistic frontier and that of the Brenner" which "would include within Italy such important centers as Bozen and Meran", while Klausen, Brixen and Toblach would be granted to Austria. I have found this map in the book "Im Schatten des Krieges" by Oswald Überegger which illustrates this, however it lacks some detail and the lack of post-1923 borders (when Cortina d'Ampezzo/Anpezo/Hayden was transferred to Belluno in Venetia) makes it harder to grasp IMO.
This map shows several partition proposals by the Research Department at the US Foreign Office and one Austrian proposal for South Tyrol after WW2. In each of these proposals the district of Cavalese in the province of Trento is marked because Austria also claimed it and requested it to be included in a plebiscite area together with the rest of the province of Bolzano, but none of these partition proposals would entail ceding it to Austria.
The first proposal would see the province of Bolzano returned to Austria, excluding the Ladin areas in the southeast and the southern tip of the Etschtal/Val d'Adige.
The second proposal is an expansion of the first, adding the town of Bozen/Bolzano to the territory to be retained by Italy and thus linking the southern Etschtal with the Ladin-speaking areas of the province.
The third proposal would've extended Italian control over the Etschtal even further.
The fourth proposal is an Austrian proposal to gain only the areas of the Pustertal, as well as the towns of Brixen and Sterzing, to Austria in order to connect the two Austrian portions of Tyrol with each other. Note how the fourth proposal would leave Austria with a small area that has a Ladin population.
The British meanwhile supported the idea of a plebiscite and in a 1946 House of Commons debate Sir Douglas Savory, member of parliament for the Queen's University of Belfast, stated:
"But it is not merely a question of the Pustertal, the valley which carries the railway to East Tyrol. It is a question of these three historic valleys—the Upper Etch, which the Italians call the Adige, the Eisack, which the Italians call the Isacco, and the Rienz. There is no claim put forward [...] for the Trentino, which is admitted to be Italian speaking. The point is that we want to restore the old historic frontier of Salurn, the linguistic boundary on the River Etch near the pass which is called the Salurner Klause—that is to say, the mountain pass of Salurn. The borderline which runs across the Brenner is not an ethnographic, and it is barely a strategic, frontier. The linguistic border coincides with the real strategic boundary—it is a magnificent boundary—which runs across the Ortler Mountain which is over 11,000 feet up, to the Marmolata over 10,000 feet. It is not only a borderline, but it is much more suitable for defence than the longer Brenner frontier [...]"
While that proposal is vague enough, it roughly equates to either the entire province of Bolzano or roughly speaking the first proposal by the US Foreign Office (possibly excluding the Ladin areas ceded to Italy).
Another member of parliament, Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, stated meanwhile in that session this about the negotiations about the original boundary post-WW1:
"Wilson proposed to put into Italy Merano, Bolzano, down the Pusterthal and right down to Albona in Venezia Giulia. That was the Wilson line, but after his discussions and at a later date—although he acknowledged, as I understand, that he regretted it—he did include the Brenner." This mirrors roughly proposal #4, and is described in more detail in an article written by one Charles Seymour in The Virginia Quarterly Review (Vol. 38, No. 4), where he describes "a line running between the linguistic frontier and that of the Brenner" which "would include within Italy such important centers as Bozen and Meran", while Klausen, Brixen and Toblach would be granted to Austria. I have found this map in the book "Im Schatten des Krieges" by Oswald Überegger which illustrates this, however it lacks some detail and the lack of post-1923 borders (when Cortina d'Ampezzo/Anpezo/Hayden was transferred to Belluno in Venetia) makes it harder to grasp IMO.
Last edited:
Many of the proposals I see here are typically the aims of certain powers in victory, such as Central Powers or Axis victory surrenders. Have there been any maps/proposals of what powers were willing to surrender under the terms of a conditional peace?
For example, as part of the Sixtus Affair, the Austrians said that they'd be willing to accept French control over Alsace-Lorraine, the independence of Belgium and Serbia, and Russian control over Constantinople. Naturally, only Serbian independence in this scenario would have impacted the Austrians, but I'm fairly certain I remember reading somewhere that the Austrians were also willing to give up their Polish territories in Galicia to Poland, so I'd be interested in hearing if the Austrians were willing to make any other significant concessions to the Entente.
For example, as part of the Sixtus Affair, the Austrians said that they'd be willing to accept French control over Alsace-Lorraine, the independence of Belgium and Serbia, and Russian control over Constantinople. Naturally, only Serbian independence in this scenario would have impacted the Austrians, but I'm fairly certain I remember reading somewhere that the Austrians were also willing to give up their Polish territories in Galicia to Poland, so I'd be interested in hearing if the Austrians were willing to make any other significant concessions to the Entente.
Obligatory QBAM:Just some South Tyrol stuff:
This map shows several partition proposals by the Research Department at the US Foreign Office and one Austrian proposal for South Tyrol after WW2. In each of these proposals the district of Cavalese in the province of Trento is marked because Austria also claimed it and requested it to be included in a plebiscite area together with the rest of the province of Bolzano, but none of these partition proposals would entail ceding it to Austria.
The first proposal would see the province of Bolzano returned to Austria, excluding the Ladin areas in the southeast and the southern tip of the Etschtal/Val d'Adige.
The second proposal is an expansion of the first, adding the town of Bozen/Bolzano to the territory to be retained by Italy and thus linking the southern Etschtal with the Ladin-speaking areas of the province.
The third proposal would've extended Italian control over the Etschtal even further.
The fourth proposal is an Austrian proposal to gain only the areas of the Pustertal, as well as the towns of Brixen and Sterzing, to Austria in order to connect the two Austrian portions of Tyrol with each other. Note how the fourth proposal would leave Austria with a small area that has a Ladin population.
The British meanwhile supported the idea of a plebiscite and in a 1946 House of Commons debate Sir Douglas Savory, member of parliament for the Queen's University of Belfast, stated:
"But it is not merely a question of the Pustertal, the valley which carries the railway to East Tyrol. It is a question of these three historic valleys—the Upper Etch, which the Italians call the Adige, the Eisack, which the Italians call the Isacco, and the Rienz. There is no claim put forward [...] for the Trentino, which is admitted to be Italian speaking. The point is that we want to restore the old historic frontier of Salurn, the linguistic boundary on the River Etch near the pass which is called the Salurner Klause—that is to say, the mountain pass of Salurn. The borderline which runs across the Brenner is not an ethnographic, and it is barely a strategic, frontier. The linguistic border coincides with the real strategic boundary—it is a magnificent boundary—which runs across the Ortler Mountain which is over 11,000 feet up, to the Marmolata over 10,000 feet. It is not only a borderline, but it is much more suitable for defence than the longer Brenner frontier [...]"
While that proposal is vague enough, it roughly equates to either the entire province of Bolzano or roughly speaking the first proposal by the US Foreign Office (possibly excluding the Ladin areas ceded to Italy).
Another member of parliament, Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, stated meanwhile in that session this about the negotiations about the original boundary post-WW1:
"Wilson proposed to put into Italy Merano, Bolzano, down the Pusterthal and right down to Albona in Venezia Giulia. That was the Wilson line, but after his discussions and at a later date—although he acknowledged, as I understand, that he regretted it—he did include the Brenner." This mirrors roughly proposal #4, and is described in more detail in an article written by one Charles Seymour in The Virginia Quarterly Review (Vol. 38, No. 4), where he describes "a line running between the linguistic frontier and that of the Brenner" which "would include within Italy such important centers as Bozen and Meran", while Klausen, Brixen and Toblach would be granted to Austria. I have found this map in the book "Im Schatten des Krieges" by Oswald Überegger which illustrates this, however it lacks some detail and the lack of post-1923 borders (when Cortina d'Ampezzo/Anpezo/Hayden was transferred to Belluno in Venetia) makes it harder to grasp IMO.
Well, there was certainly idea for trialistic Austria-Hungary-Poland with Galicia being united with (Congress?) Poland, but thats probably not what do you have on your mind.
In case of scenario you mention, I think also Bukovina would go, probably to Romania (but possibly to Poland too?)
I also read that the Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region has a sizable Kyrgiz presence, so in theory one could have (most) of it be part of Kyrgizstan, though one might wanna look at the historic borders of the Gharm Oblast to draw the actual border...
Great maps there do you have anything about what Austria-Hungary was planning to demand from italy if they had won the first world war, i know it wouldnt be whole venezia but i knew they intended to punish italy tooJust some South Tyrol stuff:
This map shows several partition proposals by the Research Department at the US Foreign Office and one Austrian proposal for South Tyrol after WW2. In each of these proposals the district of Cavalese in the province of Trento is marked because Austria also claimed it and requested it to be included in a plebiscite area together with the rest of the province of Bolzano, but none of these partition proposals would entail ceding it to Austria.
The first proposal would see the province of Bolzano returned to Austria, excluding the Ladin areas in the southeast and the southern tip of the Etschtal/Val d'Adige.
The second proposal is an expansion of the first, adding the town of Bozen/Bolzano to the territory to be retained by Italy and thus linking the southern Etschtal with the Ladin-speaking areas of the province.
The third proposal would've extended Italian control over the Etschtal even further.
The fourth proposal is an Austrian proposal to gain only the areas of the Pustertal, as well as the towns of Brixen and Sterzing, to Austria in order to connect the two Austrian portions of Tyrol with each other. Note how the fourth proposal would leave Austria with a small area that has a Ladin population.
The British meanwhile supported the idea of a plebiscite and in a 1946 House of Commons debate Sir Douglas Savory, member of parliament for the Queen's University of Belfast, stated:
"But it is not merely a question of the Pustertal, the valley which carries the railway to East Tyrol. It is a question of these three historic valleys—the Upper Etch, which the Italians call the Adige, the Eisack, which the Italians call the Isacco, and the Rienz. There is no claim put forward [...] for the Trentino, which is admitted to be Italian speaking. The point is that we want to restore the old historic frontier of Salurn, the linguistic boundary on the River Etch near the pass which is called the Salurner Klause—that is to say, the mountain pass of Salurn. The borderline which runs across the Brenner is not an ethnographic, and it is barely a strategic, frontier. The linguistic border coincides with the real strategic boundary—it is a magnificent boundary—which runs across the Ortler Mountain which is over 11,000 feet up, to the Marmolata over 10,000 feet. It is not only a borderline, but it is much more suitable for defence than the longer Brenner frontier [...]"
While that proposal is vague enough, it roughly equates to either the entire province of Bolzano or roughly speaking the first proposal by the US Foreign Office (possibly excluding the Ladin areas ceded to Italy).
Another member of parliament, Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, stated meanwhile in that session this about the negotiations about the original boundary post-WW1:
"Wilson proposed to put into Italy Merano, Bolzano, down the Pusterthal and right down to Albona in Venezia Giulia. That was the Wilson line, but after his discussions and at a later date—although he acknowledged, as I understand, that he regretted it—he did include the Brenner." This mirrors roughly proposal #4, and is described in more detail in an article written by one Charles Seymour in The Virginia Quarterly Review (Vol. 38, No. 4), where he describes "a line running between the linguistic frontier and that of the Brenner" which "would include within Italy such important centers as Bozen and Meran", while Klausen, Brixen and Toblach would be granted to Austria. I have found this map in the book "Im Schatten des Krieges" by Oswald Überegger which illustrates this, however it lacks some detail and the lack of post-1923 borders (when Cortina d'Ampezzo/Anpezo/Hayden was transferred to Belluno in Venetia) makes it harder to grasp IMO.
Delusional proposal for a united Turkic world by an Iranian Azerbaijani journalist living in Istanbul named Elyar Kamrani, who believes that Mazandaran can be used as an artificial demographic corridor between the Caucasus and Central Asia.
Source: https://twitter.com/ElyarKamrani
Source: https://twitter.com/ElyarKamrani
Well...at least he acknowledges Iraqi Kurdistan as not being Turkish...somehow...
Also, sneaky Turkic Crete is sneaky.
Just build a rail+road bridge across the Caspian at the pointy part. Problem solved. No land corridor needed.
Hey, it’s only 30 miles longer than the world’s longest bridge, and the pylons only have to be a maximum of 250 meters deep. That’s not too bad. They could put the combined might of Panturkistan behind it and have it done in, oh, a few decades.That would be one hell of a bridge
No task is too great for the sons of Turan to accomplish!
I've love to see a worlda or QBAM of thisI was just having a look over the Map Request thread and came across this:
A bit of digging turned up some more detail by the University of Alaska:
This area would consist of 85% of the population of the Alaska Territory.
Does that top border conform to the border of the Arctic Seaboard Drainage Area? Should be easy enough to map, then.
Yes, the northern border follows the Brooks Range from the Alaska-Yukon border to the 152nd Meridian West, which it then follows to Cook Inlet.
Here's a quick attempt at a WorldA using QGIS,
Talking about linking the Caucasus and Central Asia... Khrushchev considered giving Azerbaijan a piece of Kazakhstan on the other side of the caspian! The main reason given were because Azerbaijani had a better administration for petroleum extraction, and because Khrushchev generally considered Kazakhstan as too big.
"
From a short article we learn that in addition to the Crimean affairs, Khrushchev cut off a piece from Kazakhstan and handed it over to Uzbekistan, he was almost completely about to take away the Mangyshlak peninsula from Kazakhstan and transfer it to Azerbaijan, and most importantly, that Khrushchev had completely cut out a certain "Virgin Land" from the body of the Kazakh SSR edge" with direct subordination to the Center, that is, Moscow (bypassing Alma-Ata). Akmola, Kostanay, Kokshetau, Pavlodar and North Kazakhstan regions were included in the "Virgin Land". And only after the resignation of Khrushchev, the Kazakh SSR managed to achieve the abolition of "autonomy",
and
"In September, 1960, Khrushchev invited the then Kazakh leaders to Moscow - the secretary of the republican Central Committee of the party, Dinmukhamed Kunayev, and the head of the Council of Ministers, Zhumabek Tashenev. He told them that along with the creation in the same year of the “Tselinny Krai” as part of all North Kazakhstan regions, it would be necessary to think about transferring a number of other territories to Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan."
"In this regard, characteristic information of the national portal on stories Kazakhstan's "Altynord" from 14 July 2014 G.: "At that time Khruschev was obsessed with the obsession to cut off land in the north, south and west from Kazakhstan and distribute them to its neighbors. Five northern grain regions were to go to Russia, Mangyshlak oil fields to Turkmenistan or Azerbaijan, cotton areas - Uzbekistan."
"Finally, in 1962, Moscow started talking about the transfer of the Mangyshlak Peninsula (this is almost 25% of the territory of Kazakhstan) now to Azerbaijan. The idea was filed from Baku, and the rationale was that Mangyshlak had long been engaged in the oil industry. The leadership of Kazakhstan instructed Shahmardan Yesenov, the republican minister of geology, to “fight back”."
"In 1962, the center spoke about transferring the Mangyshlak peninsula to Azerbaijan (according to some sources, to Turkmenistan) on the grounds that the oil industry had been engaged there for a long time.
Majority of sources I've seen say Khrushchev considered giving Mangystau/Mangyshlak to Azerbaijan, with only one mentionning giving it to Turkmenistan or splitting it
I am not sure of the border since Mangystau oblast did not exist at the time (it was part of the Atyrau region), however since one source specifically mentions the Mangyshlak peninsula I'd guess it may lack some of the northern part of current Mangystau, so I'm basing myself on the early 20s Mangystau division, the part that was specifically taken from Turkestan to Kirghiz ASSR
Last edited:
Quick correction, as the map shows that Kodiak Island is a part of the State and not the Territory: